https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgpfNScEd3M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mdwmpLYLY
Printable View
Jimmy Kimmel's show and all of its content is owned and controlled by Disney, the second-largest media conglomerate on the planet in terms of revenue. Billions of dollars in advertising revenue from pharmaceutical companies have floated through Disney's bank accounts. I trust what the doctors they hire say, about vaccinations or anything else, about as far as I can throw Disneyland.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Yes, the video is an obvious attempt to disparage and discredit those who choose not to have their
children vaccinated. This is quite apparent in just the first 2 minutes. The emcee tells us we should
listen to doctors because their advice is based on what they learned in medical school. What he
doesn't say is that much of what doctors know (or think they know) is based on what big pharma
drug promoters have told them.
If I were a parent, I'd listen very carefully to my fellow parents whose son or daughter became
severely regressed developmentally soon after receiving a vaccination. True, it may be only a small
percentage who suffer such outcomes, but would you want to take that kind of gamble with your
child's health? And what other effects might injected vaccines have on health that are less obvious?
I'll put my faith in my peers long before I do so in any professional. Far too many of the latter -
even though they may be well-meaning - have proven to be misguided by "the science."
C. Summer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by markfassett:
Yes, thank you for posting this, Edward. The gist of it is 3 questions in which you ask: Do you believe _______, and to all 3 I answer - in so many words - no. I'm beginning to get an inkling of what the problem is here. It seems you think that if I don't believe A, then I must believe B. This is not the case, however.
To me, believing is irresponsible when it comes to seeking truth. It's allowing someone else to provide you with their version of the truth. It seems to me the only way to find the truth is to keep an open mind and not allow it to be filled with someone else's version of reality or history. Of course, there are many things I probably will never know the truth about unless I want to devote my life to investigating all such things (which I don't). So instead I listen to the various accounts that people offer and weigh their credibility. But even if one seems much more credible than the others, I still don't "believe" it's the whole truth and all there is to know. I would tentatively view what seems more credible as likely being closer to the truth than the other versions.
It is true that I tend to be rather skeptical of official accounts, having been too many times taken in by "authoritative" pronouncements that later proved to be false and arising from some hidden agenda (usually one related to some industries' profit margins or a politician's popularity). So, as you might understand, I stay quite open to alternatives to the official accounts.
On the subject of vaccination, someone just called to my attention an article that states - with considerable scientific validation - that outbreaks of measles and other infectious diseases can be caused by recently vaccinated people as easily as by those who are unvaccinated. The article also states: "Well-nourished children easily recover from infectious disease and rarely suffer complications." This certainly fits with my experience and observations, which over the years has shown me that a well-functioning immune system is the best defense against the common cold or influenza (and probably many other diseases).
CSummer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Here is a lovely little piece involveing the infamous Mike Adams about Kimmels message.
https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...r-hate-speech/
Mike Adams attacks Jimmy Kimmel for “hate speech”
Posted by Orac on March 3, 2015
The last couple of days have been unrelentingly serious and depressing, with posts on the (probably) preventable death of a young Australian woman named Jess Ainscough of a rare cancer because she made the mistake of choosing the quackery that is the Gerson protocol rather than conventional medicine. Unfortunately, the “natural health community” will almost certainly learn nothing from her story, in which Ainscough, facing the very unpleasant prospect of a radical amputation, instead chose Gerson therapy and became an evangelist for that particular form of cancer quackery and “natural healing.” I felt sorry for her, even though I couldn’t approve of how she potentially led people with cancer down the road of pseudoscience and quackery with her enthusiastic promotion of coffee enemas and the rest of the nonsense Charlotte Gerson sells based on her father’s protocol.
I need to lighten up.
Who better to provide the comic relief from this thus far grim week than that buffoon of buffoons, Mike Adams? Even better, unlike Ainscough, who was herself a victim of whatever cancer quacks sold her on the Gerson protocol in the first place, Adams is no victim. He’s also pissed off (his usual state of mind) Why is he so ticked off? Well, he’s not happy with Jimmy Kimmel over this bit he did Friday night on his show:
Normally, I don’t watch Jimmy Kimmel, even on the now rare times when I’m up that late. (My wife and I tend to be so beat on Friday nights that our typical ritual on most Fridays is to order pizza, maybe with a glass of wine—or not—and then fall asleep with the dog on the couch by 10 PM.) I saw it Saturday morning, as it was making the rounds on social media, and I thought it was hilarious.
Mike Adams was not so amused. doing that faux outrage schtick he does so well to fire up his minions against the evil depredations of big pharma and the government, he published a spittle-flecked rant (are there any other kinds from Mike Adams?) entitled OUTRAGE! Jimmy Kimmel makes fun of vaccine-damaged children, revives hate speech bigotry on national TV. I must admit, I was surprised it took him nearly four days to come up with this, but I did chuckle at the histrionic title of the post before I read a single word:
Throughout U.S. history, certain selected groups of citizens have been subjected to extreme verbal, judicial and even physical abuse at the hands of bigoted oppressors. The historical abuse of African-Americans — subjected to generations of abusive language and racism that still lingers today — was villainously summed up with a bigoted hate speech label I dare not utter here.Did you watch the video? I did. Kimmel didn’t make fun of any children, “vaccine-injured,” autistic, or neurotypical, or otherwise. Not at all. Rather, he made fun of “antivaxers,” basically mocking their sense of entitlement and, above all, their apparent belief that their Google University knowledge trumps the actual knowledge of doctors, using a rather hilarious fake public service announcement with doctors complaining about this and using slightly profanity-laced exhortations to parents to get their kids vaccinated. It was an excellent deconstruction of the Dunning-Kruger effect that makes antivaccinationists antivaccinationists.
Gay Americans were similarly subjected to the label of “f-@@-t,” a hate-based derogatory slur invoked to demean a human being because of their sexual orientation. It was this campaign of verbal abuse and derogatory hate speech that helped give rise to violence against gays in America.
Importantly, every effort to demean and denigrate a selectively targeted class of citizens — whether for their skin color, their sexual orientation or their beliefs — has been preceded by a campaign of verbal abuse intended to dehumanize that targeted group. The invocation and use of bigoted, derogatory labels lays the social and cultural groundwork for not only discrimination but even actual violence committed against the groups being targeted.
Racism and hate speech are wrong. It is morally, politically and socially incorrect to use hate speech labels in a derogatory manner in a civilized society. These terms are hate-based forms of speech meant to emotionally hurt and demean targeted groups of innocent people. Yet, astonishingly, it has now emerged in America that it is socially acceptable to use precisely the same bigoted hate-speech language against another group: children who are damaged by vaccines (and children who are unvaccinated). This group is now being widely and aggressively disparaged with the hate-based term “anti-vaxxers.”
Kimmel’s five minute comedy bit is not “hate speech,” although complaining about “hate speech” or “bullying” has become the go-to whine from antivaccinationists facing criticism for their choices, a whine that’s become even more intense in light of the Disneyland measles outbreak since Christmas. Criticism of pseudoscience and quackery is not “hate speech.” It’s just not. For one thing, hate speech usually involves attacking groups who are the way they are through no choice of their own. Think attacking Jews or African-Americans on the basis of their religion or race. Think attacking homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. Yes, those are the examples Adams used, but how is one of these things (antivaccinationists) not like the others (blacks or homosexuals)? That’s right. Antivaccinationists choose to be antivaccinationists. Also, blacks and gays do no harm to society by being black or gay. Antivaccinationists, through their choices not to vaccinate, are largely responsible for the resurgence of diseases once thought vanquished—like measles.
Not that that stops Adams when he’s on a roll even more ridiculous than one of his typical rants:In a stunning demonstration of demeaning hate speech targeting children who have suffered brain damage from vaccines, comedian Jimmy Kimmel unleashed a satire comedy hit piece that, fifty years ago, would have almost certainly seen Kimmel making fun of black people. Twenty years ago, he would have been making fun of gay people. But today, in 2015, Jimmy Kimmel directs his ignorance, bigotry and demeaning hate speech toward vaccine-damaged children who are now labeled “anti-vaxxers.”Given that Adams brought race into this, you know where this is going; that is, if you’ve been following this blog at least since August and recall the kerfuffle over the trumped up “CDC Whistleblower” manufactroversy:
Not only is Jimmy Kimmel using bigoted hate speech language to demean crippled children who were damaged by vaccines; he’s also doing so in a manner that is utterly ignorant of the special risks posed to African-Americans by vaccines.Except that the CDC study in question showed nothing of the sort, and there’s no credible evidence of a “cover up,” just the stress-induced claims of a single CDC psychologist whose claims have gained no traction and failed to be corroborated. This whole kerfuffle came to be known among antivaccinationists as the “CDC whistleblower”/#CDCWhistleblower saga. Let’s just put it this way: Andrew Wakefield glommed onto this fake controversy. That ought to tell you all you need to know.
It was Dr. William Thompson, a top CDC scientist, who blew the whistle on the CDC’s vaccine research fraud last year, going public with his confession that the CDC knowingly covered up data linking vaccines to an increased risk of autism in young African-American boys.
Adams even invokes a statement by Mahatma Gandhi, who, if the reference is accurate, was apparently amazingly ignorant about vaccination, leading me to wonder: Where did Gandhi get his medical degree? (For a more skeptical take on Gandhi’s views on vaccines, check this out.) On a scientific basis, I care no more what Gandhi said about vaccines than what Mike Adams says, things like:
Vaccines, it turns out, are a form of medical violence against children for the simple reason that they provably cause extreme, permanent damage in many children year after year. But medical violence isn’t the only violence that Jimmy Kimmel now seems to be promoting… he’s also provoking individual acts of violence against so-called “anti-vaxxers” through his emotionally-charged, hate-filled rhetoric disguised as comedy.Oh, please, Mr. Adams. Pot. Kettle. Black. This nonsense is from a man who routinely refers to scientists as being the equivalent of “Nazis” (no, actually, he likened Monsanto and pro-GMO advocates explicitly to Nazis and strongly implied that it would be right to kill them for their “heinous crimes,” starting up and later shutting down a site called “Monsanto Collaborators”) and castigates science itself as evil, while ranting against big pharma. Hypocrisy, thy name is Mike Adams (among others). By Adams’ own definition, he engages in hate speech himself far beyond any accusation he can come up with against Jimmy Kimmel in his fevered imagination. It’s just another example of what a joke Mike Adams is. Unfortunately, he’s an influential joke.
Historically, it was the public tolerance of hate speech against African-Americans and gays that encouraged some people to engage in violent acts against them. After all, a group of people who are verbally belittled with derogatory and bigoted hate speech by public figures is an easy target for those with violent tendencies.
Over the last few years, antivaccinationists have tried to liken themselves to traditionally oppressed or discriminated against groups, such as blacks, gays, or others in a transparent ploy to deflect criticism and paint it as “oppression.” Adams’ little screed takes that technique and hilariously puts it on steroids and cranks it up to 11. (Yes, when it comes to Adams, I like to shamelessly mix metaphors.) It’s over-the-top, even by Mike Adams’ standards.
For Mike Adams, it’s always, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
ADDENDUM: Jimmy Kimmel now has a followup. It’s hilarious, as Kimmel shows actual Tweets directed at him and lets antivaxers advocate for a “child’s right to choose”:
Why I am an “Anti-Vaccer”
Almost 40 years ago, while preparing for the birth of our first child, we received a letter from a close friend. He was very upset by our decision to have a home birth attended by a midwife. He told us that it was (his phrase) “the consensus of the scientific community” that the safest way to have a baby was in a hospital under the care of a physician, and that we were ”endangering the life of our unborn child” (again, his phrase) by ignoring that consensus and substituting our own judgment, or lack thereof, for this consensus.
My spouse and I spent a long time thinking about this letter and the issues it raised. Our friend was a highly intelligent and politically progressive person whom we deeply respected. In our reply to him we pointed to the historical phenomenon of birth being moved out of the hands of women (midwives) into the control of men (doctors). We pointed to the rising rates of medically questionable Caesarean sections associated with hospital births. We pointed to Holland, the country with the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, where over 99% of births occurred at home, with midwives in attendance. But mostly we talked about the “consensus of the scientific community”, which in our analysis represented the most conservative position possible from a scientific perspective. In medicine, we pointed to the 19th century, when any doctor who washed his hands between performing an autopsy and delivering a baby could and would be driven out of the profession as a superstitious ignoramus. Dr. Semmelweis, the “father of antiseptic procedures”, was the most famous example of this. After being hounded out of his position and profession, he died in an insane asylum at the age of 47.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis).
In our time, we pointed to the issue of diet and cancer. Even as late as the 1970's, it was the “consensus of the scientific community”, represented by the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society, that the “number one way to recognize a cancer quack” was that they said there was a link between diet and cancer. Doctors who did so should be reported to the authorities, we were told, where they would be sure to lose their license and would likely be subject to criminal prosecution.
We went ahead and had our baby at home. We were very grateful that it went well. All three of our children were born at home. None were given the hospital mandated drops in their eyes to prevent syphilis related blindness. And none were vaccinated.
Why should we believe that vaccination safety is a “settled science” and that our mistrust of “Big Pharma” should not interfere with our acceptance of this consensus. We are told that“every reputable doctor and scientist on the planet is leveling the finger of blame at parents who refuse to vaccinate their children”. Frankly, that scares me to death. There is no such thing as “settled science”. It is against the very nature of scientific inquiry to suggest such a thing. Sort of like closing the patent office since everything has already been invented.
We are told that we should believe the pharmaceutical companies on this one thing—even though we know that they routinely lie about everything else. And this one thing is that is is good to put lots of chemicals into babies' bodies soon after they are born—that this will result in them being healthier as they grow up.
There are so many chemicals being put into these little human beings—right into their veins, so many and all at once. There is NO CHANCE that there are not side effects to doing this. It is not scientifically or medically possible that there will be no side effects. And the fact that we are told so frequently and in such very loud voices that these things are good for us and for our “kids” is a sure sign that this is a lie. It is, in technical terms, a “big lie”.
When I was a young person cancer in children was a virtually unknown phenomenon (with the exception of a small number of Leukemia cases). Today there are entire hospitals devoted to children with cancer. Levels of asthma and auto-immune diseases in children have increased exponentially over the past several decades. We don't have to worry about Measles, Mumps and Rubella. We have to worry about Celeriac, Diabetes type 1 and a myriad of auto-immune conditions which continue to rise at alarming rates. Is it possible that the old diseases of childhood played some role in stimulating the auto-immune system in ways that protected children in later life? I do not know. But I do think that it is a reasonable hypothesis and one that deserves investigation. And I also know that, if I were a doctor, I would be very hesitant to raise the question. I would never get any research money to study this hypothesis, and would likely be drummed out of the profession for making such an absurd suggestion. I might even end up in jail. Or an insane asylum.
Abraham Entin (Feb, 2015)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by bill shearer: