Quote from: tvbcof on December 18, 2016, 06:49:10 PM

Quote from: protokol on December 18, 2016, 01:36:59 PM

...

Thanks for your critique. It's cumbersome to document complex philosophical framework prior to each use of the word 'believe'. I do try to use the word carefully and mostly stand by my use though I was not careful and it could be read from one of my sentences that I believe 'all' people in positions of power blah, blah, blah. That was a mistake on my part. Other than that I stand by my writings.

In logical analysis I use the method of testing the null hypothesis liberally when possible. Basically, if a null hypothesis is absurd, I tend to assign high weight to a hypothesis and sometimes shift it to a 'fact' or 'near fact' which I can legitimately 'believe'.

The null hypothesis of hCG laced tetanus vaccines being developed is that they were not. In this case the null hypothesis is that in spite of documented scientific literature and lack of denials of such a program, it never existed. That nearly impossible to sustain so I 'believe' that such developments were almost certainly undertaken. There is an outside possibility that the evidence for them was fabricated for some unknown reason, but that is very difficult to believe. Especially in light of corroborating observations. By far the simplest explanation was that such developments occurred, and there are abundant reasons to believe that there were means, motive, and opportunity to do just that.

---

As for metals in the body interacting with electromagnetic radiation, like I said from the start it is a 'weak' hypothesis. Just something I thought up to match against the observation that there seems to be a strong desire to inject them in to humans early and often. Other hypothesis which are stronger exist including that big brother loves us all, wants the best for us, and will brow-beat the fuck out of anyone who goes against their will.

The observation that some metals (such as iron) tend to be better conductors than others (such as Al) can be weighted against the hypothesis but does not kill it. In part this is because the hypothetical electromagnetic methods are not known and probably don't even exist at all (which directly applies to the strength of the hypothesis and which is why I consider it 'weak'. It's filed away, however, because if evidence of electromagnetic population management operations do strengthen, so does the hypothesis about injections. I would note that in the study of electromagnetism, it is noted that elemental forms of metals behave differently than those found as constituents of more complex molecules like hemoglobin.

---

I tend to not spend much time on metaphysical hypothesis (e.g., Christ died to save sinners, or dark matter and alien consciousness control us all) for the same reason I don't drive my car into a bog where it is certain I'll get stuck. The world is chalk full of more tangible areas of exploration where real progress can be made.

The systematic favoritism/discrimination related to 'evidence' (and more generally, theories/hypotheses) is a different matter all together. If questioning the official dogma about, say, polio and our hero scientists involved with it leads to loss of employment and any 'evidence' against it is banished from 'scientific' journals, then I consider limited 'evidence' to be explainable by mechanisms outside of the hypothesis I seek to explore.

Thanks for your humble and well thought out reply - it is a refreshing thing on BCT when users respond in an intelligent, rational manner (when so many users on here revert to fallacies and personal attacks).

There is a lot in your post which I will need some time to process, but it does seem as we are venturing into the philosophical/epistemological realms of evidence and its strengths and weaknesses.

I also don't spend much time on the "metaphysical hypotheses", my example was just to demonstrate the problems when we claim "the evidence is hard/impossible to obtain, therefore the hypothesis may have scientific merit". I realize the real life implications of that claim are far more complex, when we are discussing effects which are relatively well documented and follow the general laws of established physics, such as the effects of vaccines.

I just wish we could escape some of the pseudoscience related to the more controversial aspects of vaccines, eg the misinformation that Andrew Wakefield perpetuated and still is popular today among certain groups. I do think that Big Pharma should be more transparent in their research/deployment of drugs and vaccines, because they are certainly corrupt in many ways and making money is very high on their priority list.

A serious problem that should be addressed is certain pharmaceutical companies suppressing studies that claim their drug is ineffective: Case in point - studies that showed that Tamiflu was fairly inneffective were suppressed by Roche Pharmaceuticals, and governments around the world spent millions stockpiling a drug which in most cases is nearly useless! But I see that as a company being corrupt for monetary gain, dissimilar to a company planning to market a dnagerous drug/vaccine to depopulate/control the masses through physiological means.

However this doesn't mean that every drug or vaccine produced is necessarily dangerous or ineffective. We just need to be careful and attempt to find as much unbiased research as possible on drugs and vaccines (unbiased being the tricky one haha).