Category Archives: Official Stories – The Book

What the Wikipedia Does and Doesn’t Allow

[Edit – it looks like the wikipedia rats are still chewing on their final version of their cover-up article. This relates to the one they tried to keep up before I began pointing out their intentional errors.]

Please find my notes below as they related to the Incarnation Children’s Center article on the Wikipedia. It’s hardly worth trying to keep that page balanced, reasonable or attached to a notion of doctrinal fairness. It’s a losing battle. In fact, they’ll tell you they don’t allow certain points of view.

The founder of Wikipedia dislikes anything but pharmaceutical medicine:
Change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia

Change.Org Petition to Jimmy Wales

Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia: Create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing.

Jimmy Wales responds:

No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.
Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t.

Lunatic charlatans, of course, who put Black Box drugs (those that have killed adults at normal, prescribed doses) into infants and children at ‘higher than normal doses,’ in experiments are… fine, apparently.

So, it’s not shocking that Wikipedia is not a true “encyclopedia,” but is a news information vendor with a strong editorial bias. Even the great Lynn Margulis can be defamed for what she thought, because it did not comply with the dictatorial medical ethos of today. Wikipedia/Lynn Margulis

But, on the Wikipedia page, a number of unmistakeable slights have occurred, and I’ll quickly ask after them, before I leave it to history.

The Wikipedia page on Incarnation Children’s Center states many things, and few to none of them are true. The page has singled me out as the best scapegoat to draw attention away from the decade or more in which the NIH used infants abandoned at NYC hospitals as experimental pin-cushions for already designed “Black Box” drugs. The article makes too many “mistakes” (libels) to fix one by one, so I’ll just do it loosely, and you’ll get the picture. Continue reading What the Wikipedia Does and Doesn’t Allow

Science is Fact!

Science is Fact

Science is fact!

• Fact is data, interpreted through a worldview.

Science is observation!

• Observation is subjective.

Science is measurement!

• Measurements are linear and limited.

Science is Truth!

• Nothing is all knowable.

 

—–

Liam Scheff is a journalist, radio host and author of “Official Stories,” because “official stories exist to protect officials.” 

© Liam Scheff 2014

 

But it’s Science!

“But it’s science!” “I don’t believe in myths! I believe in science!” go the common arguments against critics of science. But, what is science?

Science = “Interpretation of data.”

Data = “numbers collected and measured in a highly-limited and usually artificial, non-natural environment, which has been established for the purpose of creating numbers which serve a particular interpretation.”

Can you see where the trouble starts?

—–

Liam Scheff is a journalist and author of “Official Stories,” because “official stories exist to protect officials.” 

Debunking debunking

by Liam Scheff

Get into a debate about the make-believe sciences of today, and you’ll meet one of the self-appointed internet or journal attack dogs, whose trade it is to puke on reality and call it a ham sandwich. (I’m a vegetarian, myself, so neither is a happy place.)

They’ll describe their process as “debunking,” but be warned, they’re full of ham. People who use the word ‘debunk’ are always propagandists. No one ‘debunks’ anything. They bunk it.

‘Debunking’ contains a hidden verbal attack on whatever the intended target is. It’s not a ‘critical analysis.’ It says, from before the first argument is heard, that the target is a liar, full of ‘bunk,’ a con and a scam-artist.

If a writer is serious about presenting information, they don’t ‘debunk,’ they offer fair and clear analysis. Everything else is either opinion or propaganda.

Don’t fall for snotty-nosed academic put-downs. Demand fair and equal-time, equal-weight debate – or walk away from the opponent, because they’re not being sincere or serious. And remember, “Official Stories,” because “official stories exist to protect officials.” 

The AIDS Investigation

The AIDS investigation is expanded in Chapters 5 and 6 of “Official Stories”

The related Vaccination investigation is expanded in Chapter 5 of “Official Stories”

Question: Is the AIDS industry honest?

Ask yourself if you have ever heard this, or anything like this before:

“We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.”

Who said it? Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Prize winner for ‘discovering HIV,’ (quoted in “House of Numbers,” 2009). But he’s been saying things like this for years. In the film, he goes on to agree that that Africans who are helped out of poverty (fed and given clean water, etc) can overcome the infection.

How about this?

“We followed up 175 HIV-discordant couples [one partner tests positive, one negative] over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up… No transmission [of HIV] occurred among the 25% of couples who did not use their condoms consistently, nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up…”

We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]…This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors.”

That is, 175 mixed (HIV positive/negative) couples had sex – anal and vaginal – for 6 years, with and without condoms, and nobody who was negative became positive.

Dr. Nancy Padian, the researcher who ran that study out of U.C. Berkeley, was also in “House of Numbers.” She said that HIV was one of the hardest viruses to transmit, and added that ‘everybody knows that.’

So, I’ll ask again:

Is the AIDS industry honest? Is it even close to honest? Is it transparent? Do you ever hear statements like these in the media? Would you like to know why? Continue reading The AIDS Investigation