Jane Hansen’s trail of lies and deception.

By Sarah Walls

Jane Hansen has written a Daily Telegraph hit piece about blogger and mother Taylor Winterstein. Taylor has amassed a huge social media following sharing her journey from a toxic lifestyle to health and wellness in her blog ‘Tay’s way’

Taylor will soon be joining the Australian Vaxxed tour in January 2018 where she will be interviewing vaccine -traumatised families who are ignored by the mainstream media, and giving them a much-needed platform to be heard!  Jane Hansen has used a misleading and dramatic headline ‘Manly star’s wife Taylor Winterstein takes on role as Aussie face of movie Vaxxed’.

Jane Hansen is attempting to make Taylor the “face” of the movement. Taylor disagrees with this label and says

‘I am part of a large team who are fearless in the pursuit of spreading truth and awareness’.

The Pharma-backed press ignores vaccine injury stories as they, along with pharma-backed government, fear that covering them will discourage people from vaccinating. This issue affects the lives of millions of children worldwide. Parents deserve to hear the science without conflicts of interest.

Jane Hansen is often assigned to the dirty work in Australian media . Her previous job for Murdoch was selling the lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so the government could justify the Australia’s senseless involvement in the war. The US government had to finally admit the truth after the war was over.

In 1997, she was a journalist on tabloid TV show A Current Affair where she did a story on electronic repair man ‘Benny Mendoza’ and exposed him for not fixing some equipment he claimed to have fixed. The advertising for the story ran all weekend and sadly he committed suicide.  Upon reflect ion over this senseless tragedy Jane Hansen told Australian Story

I was just doing my job and I know that’s the Nuremberg defence but I wasn’t in the position to say, “Shove it, I don’t think it’s a good story.” Which is how I felt anyway. I didn’t think it was a good story. It was my job and I wasn’t in a position to be a prima donna.’

With over 20 years of tabloid journalistic experience Jane Hansen is still ‘just doing her job’. For the last few years she’s been assigned to write pro-vaccine stories and sell the No Jab No Pay/Play childhood mandatory vaccination policies to the public. She is dismissive of anyone who disagrees with flawed vaccination science and ignores all vaccine injury stories. This has something to do with being hired by Rupert Murdoch who used the Daily Telegraph to drum up public support for the No Jab No Pay/Play policy. Rupert Murdoch has financial and pharmaceutical ties. His son James Murdoch even served on the board of GlaxoSmithKline plc.

Jane Hansen exploited the tragic death of Imogen Petrak from pneumococcal meningitis by implying that her unvaccinated child gave it to her. This resulted in public backlash against her until her grieving family called out her lying on social media. Jane also failed to disclose that Imogen’s health went downhill 2 days after she received the whooping cough vaccine. 

Jane Hansen is a friend of cyber bully and harasser of vaccine-injured families Reasonable Hank . He helps her find smear stories to write against vaccine-choice advocates.  He has been awarded ‘Skeptic of the year’ in 2014  and is a proud member of the hate group Australian Skeptics and Stop the AVN. In the past they have sent death threats to pro-choice activists such as Meryl Dorey founder of the Australian Vaccination Skeptics Network. You can get an idea of how creepy the Skeptics are here

https://youtu.be/IXIOUcdpmYM

Alison Greig questions Hansen’s journalistic integrity in her article ‘Jane Hansen – A seasoned journalist with a murky past’ and writes

 “And we have to ask Jane Hansen, what choices do journalists make when they choose one side of a story? It is a choice it seems to exclude balance. It is a choice to manipulate the news and what the public know when they only report what they want  to report, rather than to offer their audience a choice as to discern the truth. ”

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is Informed Consent Possible for Vaccines in the Current Political Environment ?

By Dubius Anonymuus **

Informed Consent

There is considerable pressure for doctors to enforce strict adherence to vaccination schedules, but many patient and parents are not convinced that this is the best option for maintaining good health.

 

In this setting informed consent is of great importance, however in the current setting most doctors do not know enough about vaccines to actually give fully informed consent.

 

There are a number of issues that may be of concern for parents, but for the sake of argument the presence of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines is a good starting point.

 

Recently  ( May 2017) the Medical Board of Australia sent out a newsletter to doctors, reminding us (amongst other things) of the importance of the Vaccination Schedule:

 

http://www.medicalboard.gov.au/News/Newsletters/May-2017.aspx

(May Newsletter Australian Medical Board)

 

The  subject of vaccination is covered about ½ way down this page.

“Vaccination information resources for doctors

General practitioners have an important role in guiding parents about child vaccination issues.

The Australian Child Health Poll, conducted on behalf of Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, found that more than 25 per cent of Australian parents had some concerns about vaccination, although most still vaccinate.

General practitioners are a trusted and frequently accessed resource about vaccine concerns. There are resources available to help doctors skilfully address parent’s worries, including the following:

 

I decided this was a good opportunity to test the quality of the resources supporting doctors in decision making”

 

I initially followed the “Resources for Health Professionals” link:

http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/health-professionals

 

Finding nothing useful there I followed through to the “Clinical Updates” page:

 

http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/clinical-updates-and-news#toc_concerns

 

After a great deal of trial and error I clicked on the link for  “The Science of Immunisation Questions and Answers”

 

https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-booklets/science-immunisation

 

Article “The science of immunisation”

click on hyperlink 2

“What’s in a Vaccine”

https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-booklets/science-immunisation/2-what-vaccine

 

Track down to Adjuvants and read:

“In most human vaccines that contain adjuvants, the adjuvant is an aluminium salt (known as alum), which has a track record of safety dating back to the 1950s 49. Some newer vaccines incorporate more active adjuvants, derived from naturally occurring oil in water emulsions, fats from bacterial cell walls, or sugars. These can produce more vigorous and better targeted immune responses against the infectious agent 50.”

 

Then click on hyperlink 49

Which is the only reference I could find to aluminium in all this mess

 

  • Edelman, R. (1980) Vaccine adjuvants. Rev Infect Dis 2 (3), 370–83.

 

 

So the final answer is that after an enormous amount of hunting around the doctor would finally learn that the only reference to the safety of aluminium adjuvants is 1980– 37 years ago.

My first literature review using the terms aluminium   neurotoxicity:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=aluminium+neurotxicity

reveals 423 papers

 

However a more comprehensive review summed up at Vaccine Papers provides very strong evidence linking aluminium (especially at the low doses associated with vaccines) with neurotxicity.

 

http://vaccinepapers.org/al-adjuvant-causes-brain-inflammation-behavioral-disorders/

 

So the current situation is that it is almost impossible for doctors to do anything more than say that “The authorities tell me they must be safe, so therefore they must be”. Few doctors would take the trouble to track all the way through these resources, and even fewer of them would know that there has been a great deal of research done on the aluminium adjuvant- brain inflammation link since that 1980 paper. Additionally there never has been research done on a population exposed to aluminium adjuvants versus one not so exposed, but that fact is not accessible to casual investigation. To make matters worse the guidelines for paper selection for ATAGI and the National Immunisation Committee in Australia specifically exclude any studies relying purely on in vitro or animal studies, and thus these guidelines cut the committees off from important information, which would give any individual valid reason to refuse vaccines for themselves or their children.

 

Given those observations, I suspect that it is actually not possible to give legally valid informed consent for vaccines.

** Dubious Anonymous is a medical practitioner who has enough sense to keep a low profile when offering an intellectual critique of his profession, because he knows they can’t take it

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Tactics of Social Control by the Skeptics

 By  Dubius Anonymuus
FOSMdestroy.jpg

Friends of Science in Medicine get together  (L-R) Dr Ken Harvey, Loretta Marron OAM, Prof Alistair MacLennan AO, Dr Sue Ieraci, Prof Marcello Costa, Jo Benhamu RN, Prof Rob Morrison OAM, Prof John Dwyer AO 

 

  It is helpful to look at the extent to which the “Friends of Science in Medicine” and their allies will go to dominate the conversation, scare off opponents, and give the impression that there is a groundswell of opinion in their direction. Friends of Science In Medicine pretend to be a group supporting skepticism and science but they are always highly partisan in the approach they take. They fail to take in to account the huge problem in science created by the lack of replicability of most science and the massive distortions created by industry influence.  Additionally the targets of FOSM and allied  groups such as Australian Skeptics and facebook hate group SAVN ( Stop the Australian Vaccination Network)  are  ALWAYS consistently attacking treatments which are low cost, have demonstrated low risk, and may take market share away from the major pharmaceutical groups and medical interest groups. In this setting we should all remind ourselves that the third largest cause of death in the USA is medical misadventure.

maxresdefault

There is substantial evidence that pharmaceutical groups actually directly pay people (often from overseas call centres) to make repeated comments on message boards and skew the public conversation and make their opponents look stupid. The question of paid astroturfing is complex enough to require a post of its own, so this post will focus on tactics used.
david-gorski-laughing

Skeptic and pro vaccine troll Dr David Gorski

These two posts were taken by a US pro choice group, from a discussion thread that started in April 2012 on Dr David Gorski’s blog “Respectful insolence” Dr. David Gorski is a Skeptic and  pro-vaccine oncologist with ties to the Barbara Anne Karmanos Cancer Institute, notorious for experimental cancer treatments and drugs that have been fast-tracked by the FDA. I have personally sighted the original but it took a good deal of work to trawl through the thread to find the original comments, and it was like wading through a sewer.  The comments clearly illustrate unethical tactics that we have all seen employed by the pro-vaccine lobby in the months since Pauline Hanson’s statement about parents doing their own research.
Note the contempt for the intelligence of their perceived opponents: 
This is from an article entitled ” Pro vax trolls are impersonating disease injured families on comment boards” 
Poe2go @ 12 is right on target: post that kind of schizophrenic word-salad on the anti-vax sites in large quantities, under various pseudonyms, and clog up the sites with it until it appears that a large fraction of the members are downright wacko. This will seriously turn off undecideds who check out those sites.  
Poe2go’s comment is an excellent template for this tactic, but you can easily make up your own by inserting random words into sentences and then going on digressive riffs about the random words. Be sure to Capitalize occasional Nouns and Verbs as well.Really: listen up folks, the way to fight this crap is NOT by “patiently explaining” to people who are already way past being persuaded that the Earth isn’t flat. You may as well be talking to rocks (healing crystals?:-). The way to fight it is by sabotaging the anti-vaxers with crazy stuff that drives away undecideds. The way to fight it is with emotional narratives that undermine the ones that the anti-vaxers are pushing.And some editorial comment from the owners of the site  “The Refusers”
MB Comment: Message boards on the virulently pro-vax web site ORAC Respectful Insolence (Gorski) advocate fraudulently impersonating disease-injured families and insane people on the comment sections of vaccine injury and vaccine freedom websites such as Age of Autism, Mothering Magazine and Amazon.

These pro-vax maniacs’ purpose in life is to discredit anything that casts doubt on vaccines, which is their pseudo-scientific religion.

The next time you see comments saying: ‘My unvaccinated child has autism’ or ‘My immune-compromised child can’t take vaccines – it is your duty to immunize your child so my child doesn’t get sick’ or ‘My sister got measles and died’  etc. – please be aware that these may be totally fabricated lies concocted by vaccine fanatics to intimidate and discredit vaccine freedom and awareness websites and facebook pages. They also advocate setting up phony email accounts and IDs so that their dishonest comments cannot be traced back to the source.

This despicable behavior makes it impossible to believe the veracity of any pro-vax comments you may read on news articles, Amazon forums, Mothering Magazine, etc., where these slimebag commentators lurk.

If you needed any further proof that vaccine zealots will stoop to any level to deceive and intimidate parents who are looking for truthful vaccine information, read on.

 So the question becomes one of what to do about this. Firstly recognise the nature of the problem we are dealing with, the comments on Dr Gorski’s blog are clearly unethical, and as blog owner he has a responsibility for them. He has probably said them himself somewhere, but I believe there is good reason for the conduct of his blog to be reported to the local medical board, and to let them decide.

Secondly manage and contain the problem. All blog holders need to be aware of this and to moderate comments wherever possible. In the case of Facebook Communities, unacceptable posts need to be swiftly deleted and repeat offenders excluded.

Thirdly, the provaccine/ anti complementary medicine groups will be posting widely elsewhere, aiming to influence public opinion. The best answer to that is to link to this article every time you see a post that appears to be made by a confused, semiliterate “antivaccine” person.
ken-harvey-john-dwyer.jpg

Dr John Dwyer and Dr Ken Harvey have guilt by association for being aligned with the Skeptics 

Given the dangers of guilt by association, the members of FOSM such as Dr John Dwyer and Skeptic  Dr Ken Harvey need to be aware of the murky depths and unacceptable tactics of the “skeptic” movement. We all also need to be aware that as C.S. Lewis said, in this secular age many people show the same sort of unthinking obedience to “science” as they would have to their tribal shaman, or to the priest who sold them indulgences. In this day and age, calling anything “scientific” is a great way to pull the wool over people’s eyes. The members of the FOSM must also remain mindful of the poor replicability of the “science” underpinning much of medicine ( as detailed in my recent article “Trust Me, I’m a doctor”, and has been supported by the recent collapse of the saturated fat/ heart disease hypothesis) 
Posted in Dr David Gorski, Dr Ken Harvey,, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Trust me, I’m a doctor ! Science, Guidelines, Clinical Practice and Patient Autonomy

By Dubious Anonymous **

img_4375

Pauline Hanson dared to suggest that parents should do their own research.

In late February 2017, Senator Pauline Hanson created quite a storm by suggesting that parents should do their own research and make their own decisions about vaccinations. This comment sounded rather innocuous as, after all we do live in a society which respects the right of the individual and insists on informed consent for all medical decisions (Good Medical Practice, The AMA Code of Conduct Item 2.3).

 

However it was met with a barrage of derision, and insults to the patient or parent’s capacity to make a decision, or to do adequate research on the matter. These comments clearly indicated that the commentators had no idea that many parents are far more

img_4374

Pain Specialist Dr Michael Vagg says you don’t need to do your own research into vaccines

sophisticated in their search methods than just using Wikipedia or Google.

One of the most representative, and most distasteful, commentaries was provided in “The Conversation” by a Dr Michael Vagg, a pain specialist who, under current AHPRA regulations would be regarded as not qualified to give any opinion on vaccinations.(As a precedent I would cite the difficulties faced by Dr Gary Fettke, an orthopaedic surgeon who has been cautioned by AHPRA for giving (accurate and legitimate) dietary advice to his patients, when his specialist qualification does not specifically qualify him for that.

 

 

This comment stood out more than anything else: “You don’t need to do your own research” Unless you’re a senior research scientist with your own lab, a posse of postdocs and serious wad of cash, we don’t need your help.

Firstly we need to separate out doing research in labs and investigating the state of the current research and the process of synthesising that research in to guidelines, and then into clinical practice.

How Accurate Is the Science that we base our decisions on?

The first point of concern is that there is a serious crisis in the scientific world concerning the replicability of scientific research. John P. A. Ioannidis writes about this in his paper ” Why Most Published Research Findings are False” 

Further commentary and links to unsatisfactory results are found at this Open Science blog: This blog links to several resources including studies by Bayer in 2011 showing that more than 75% of their studies could not be replicated, and another study by Amgen, which looked at 53 studies deemed to be landmark studies but could only reproduce 6 of them.

phase3_african_kid

How Biased is the Science that we base our decisions on?

HeartattacklawyersThere has been extensive discussion around the problems caused by the funding of research by pharmaceutical companies and many examples of dishonest practices. One of the most dramatic of these was the distorted research data that allowed Merck (also a vaccine manufacturer) to get its new anti-inflammatory Vioxx authorised by the FDA. That was shown to cause many heart attacks with a minimum of 50,000 deaths, and resulted in a damages payout of 4.85 billion dollars from Merck in a class action.This is only the tip of the iceberg, but it is pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines and they are indemnified against damage caused by their products.

 

However the issue goes much further than fraud. According to an article in European Journal of Clinical Investigation, it observes that in the USA between 57 and 87% of guideline authors have a conflict of interest.

Stamatakis et al list a number of areas of concern. Studies are funded by for profit organisations are four times more likely to find in favour of the studied drug. Furthermore the for profit studies are not looking at non drug treatments and the authors comment that “medical research is doomed to navigate only questions posed by the industry and their extensions.There is increasing direct evidence about the manipulation of reported results in industry-sponsored trials, which demonstrate favourable results and the avoidance of inconvenient findings.”

So the outcome of this is that only the questions that interest large pharmaceutical companies get studied. The corollary of this is that proponents of pharmaceuticals, and their allies in the so called “Science Based Medicine” movement are able to attack and marginalise complementary medicines with a view to removing them from the market because they don’t have any science to support them. These claims are usually false, but the total volume of published science in complementary medicine is clearly lower. Stametakis et al also highlight that between 57 and 87% of members of committees involved in establishing guidelines have conflicts of interest.

Guidelines and their flaws.

The published science is only part of the equation governing clinical care. Prepared clinical guidelines are becoming more dominant and while they were meant to inform clinical practice now they are increasingly dictating it, with the result that non compliance is seen as malpractice.However the preparation of clinical guidelines is a complicated process and there are many points at which it can fail.

I will use as my example here the Australian Immunisation Handbook, 10th Edition (2013) There are three committees involved in vaccination decisions ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, the (NIC) National Immunisation Committee and the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Vaccines (curiously the name of that committee has dropped removing the word safety).

The first problem is the selection of the committee that will drive the guidelines process.In the case of the Immunisation handbook the committee can be found here:This list NIC contains no consumer representative and no representative of any dissenting views.

It is relatively easy to find a conflict statement from the NIC (and 8 of the 15 committee members have disclosed conflicts ranging from payment for travel by vaccine companies to doing research partly funded by vaccine companies) but I could not find conflict of interest statements for the other two groups.Again Stamatakis et al observe that in the USA between 57 and 87% of guideline authors have a conflict of interest.

The science used by the NIC. The first problem with any Guidelines is the currency and relevance of the evidence.

Edition 10 of the Australian Immunisation Guidelines was published in 2013.

criteria for the data searched can be found here:

The criteria for exclusion were

• Publication year – searches were generally limited to items published from 2006–2011

• Language – searches were limited to items in English.

• Human – items discussing only animals were removed.

• In vitro – items discussing only in vitro studies were removed

• Abstracts – search results restricted to items containing abstracts.

So, by the time of publication, the research base was already 2 years out of date. In some areas it may be much more. For instance the Cochrane Collaboration was mentioned. The most recent Cochrane review of aluminium adjuvants appears to be 2004, based on 21 papers, all published between 1968 and 2003. By way of comparison this quick check on Pubmed using the terms “aluminium” and “neurotoxicity” revealed 417 papers, and many of them were recent:

Secondly we have no real information as to the extent of the searches being done by the NIC. We do know that the CDC has managed to find reasons to avoid considering many studies, and we have no assurance that the same is not happening in Australia.

Thirdly, we have no idea if the search terms used were adequate, and did not reflect the research and cognitive biases of the committee members. Restricting searches so that they avoid references to abstract only items is simply unacceptable. If a full article is not available for free then the Health Department should be paying for it.

The restriction on papers not written in English is unlikely to be a major problem given current practices ensuring that most science done is written in or translated to English Regardless of that an attempt should be made to at least assess the abstracts using translation software.The last two restrictions, however are more serious: namely the exclusion of animal only or in vitro studies.

The major concern here is around vaccine adjuvants. There is ample evidence of the toxicity of aluminium, and the only real question is the toxic dose. I suggest it would be impossible to get an ethics committee approval for a human study trialling injections of aluminium. It would also be hard to find a control population that was not dosed with it.

So in reality, when we look at the Australian Immunisation Guidelines it is clear that there are serious issues with the selection of the research which is used to inform the guidelines, that guidelines in general can never be current, and that the process that establishes these committees is lacking in transparency and is probably not free from bias.

So, in short, to answer Dr Vagg, and those who support his views, it is simply not possible to say that the science is as settled, complete and unbiassed as he claims. In this setting there is no way that imposition of mandatory vaccines, abolition of the right to refuse consent, or penalties for not vaccinating can ever be appropriate.

** Dubious Anonymous is a medical practitioner who has enough sense to keep a low profile when offering an intellectual critique of his profession, because he knows they can’t take it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in AHPRA, ATAGI, Dr Michael Vagg, Pauline Hanson, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Christmas Cheer from Reasonable Hank

tiernangirl1

Peter Tiernan

Everyone knows I’ve followed the ‘career’ of that serial, anonymous, online coward and slanderous blogger Reasonable Hank (it’s hard not to, all slugs leave slime in their tracks).

The stupidity and evil core of most humans never ceases to amaze me, so the Hanks of this world come as no surprise, every rock you look under you’ll find one. The thing that outrages me most about Hank is his complete and utter cowardice. So while the likes of John Cunningham, Sue Ierachi, Ken McLeod and other pro pHarma creeps like David Hawkes, Jane Hansen, and the relentlessly stupid (bought) Health Minister Jill Hennessy still disgust me at least these disturbed individuals have the courage of their demented convictions. At least they troll and injure their fellow human beings with their awful Merck ‘science’ under their own names.
Hank says he must remain anonymous because his life is in danger? Boo Hoo Pete, is your life at any more risk than any of your other equally disturbed and dangerous Skeptic mates? Are you a special case? Well?
Well I’m glad you asked because, yes, you are a special case. A special case of coward. Pretty sure I have not come across a bigger coward ever and in a world of genetically modified cowards that is no mean feat.
So after my last blog exposing Hank I thought that’s it, I’m done with this troll…I had set my sights on a couple of doctors mentioned above whose behaviour needed a little Phyto light shined upon them. No one reads his shit but a couple of us anti vaxxers a little more unhinged than the rest. Only journo that takes him seriously is the totally in decline Jane Hansen and that dried out husk of dust, what’s his name again? Blogs for Crikey, the with-friends-like-that-the-Left-don’t-need-no-enemy? Ahhh, screw it, I’ll remember it later.
This Christmas though Hank surpassed himself. This Christmas he launched one of his most decrepit attacks ever on a family on their knees. A family who have been to Hell and are not even halfway back yet. A family whose husband, father, brother, son has been crippled by a vaccine he should not have been coerced into having.
benhammondinhospital

Ben Hammond was left crippled after he was forced to have the DTap( whooping-cough) vaccine in 2012 otherwise he couldn’t see his premature baby

Some time last year, around May, I received a call from Tanya Hammond.
           “Wow! Reasonable Hank has done a supportive post on us! He even donated
             $50 to our Go Fund Me! I’m quite touched but shocked, what’s going on?”
Poor Tanya thought Hank had seen the light. I laughed, I knew this turd too well.
           “You know what it means?” I tell her, ” It means he is currently writing a
             slanderous blog about you and Ben and is going to dump shit all over
             you next week.”
Hank couldn’t even wait the week, he shat all over the Hammond family three days later. An awful, cowardly, lying blog that basically destroyed Tanya and her devastated family.
That was the turning point for me (another one). I decided to finish the job I started on this cowardly fool. I’m gonna be Tiernan’s personal Karmic facilitator. So yeah Hank, at your bitter end you’ll see me.
Since then, brave Peter Tiernan has been relentless in his despicable, cowardly attacks. He even slandered Tanya’s mum for good measure. He has written and posted over 100 times about the Hammond family since then. I thought I’d seen it all but Christmas 2016 saw Tiernan at the lowest in a low, low ‘career’.

RebelKnightlikes.gif

screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-12-50-48-pm

associateham

hammondspromote

Have you noticed Pete that all your other Skeptic/Friends of Science in Medicine trolls never retweet you when you attack the Hammonds? No you can’t include all your bogus fake social media accounts like @rebelknight50, Hank retweeting Hank. Hank’s greatest fan and retweeter is, after all Hank. Ever noticed how they don’t even comment when you slander this family? Does that not tell you anything?
screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-12-54-21-pm

“Rebel Knight” is Hank’s greatest fan and retweeter

The karmic twist here is that you are all linked by the inefficacious and toxic pertussis vaccine. See it was this vaccine that crippled and near killed Ben Hammond. This was also the vaccine that drew Tiernan into his cowardly, deranged, trolling of vaccine safety activists. Tiernan happens to be cousins with a family who suffered the terrible tragedy of losing a child to whooping cough.
Bad Pharma and Bad Government love an event like this. They can then blame the death on anti vaxxers and not the completely shit vaccine with zero efficacy. They recruit the poor shocked & grieving family to sell more vaccines. Numb and in pain the poor family accept the role so as to honour the poor child they have just lost. Think this is overly simplified then how about you research the pertussis vaccine….even Skeptic scum acknowledge it “isn’t the best vaccine”. The pertussis vaccine is a 100% total and utter waste of time and space.
So poor old Pete, one of life’s no hopers, decides this is the cause he’s been looking for and Reasonable Hank was born, groomed of course by the tawdry and juvenile Ken McLeod and inspired by that old drunk and equally disgraceful Peter Bowditch. Look at these clowns in action and judge for yourself the calibre of Bad Pharma’s goons.
So now here we are, Ben Hammond, a fit and healthy 34 year old male who is told he must have a pertu shot to see his new born baby. Cocooning the policy was called and it basically meant all family members and anyone wanting to visit a new born baby were required to have this toxic shot. Great money spinner for pHarma, think of all the cash they creamed suckering in any visitor to a new born child?
tanya-hammond6_orig.jpg
Of course this was policy failure at it’s best and all state governments soon abandoned it because, well as I’ve already told you, the vaccine just doesn’t work. It does not stop transmission of the disease. Whooping cough numbers exploded as did Big Pharma’s bank accounts and the politicians they ‘donate’ so much money to. Guess who all the suckers catching whooping cough were? The new born babies and their families and friends. Oh dear! How inconvenient. So yep, policy abandoned but not before Ben was crippled and lay at death’s doorstep for 6 months.
So what did the Hammond’s do to disturb our friendly, neighbourhood pHarma troll Peter Parker…sorry, I mean Tiernan? They had the hide to nearly die from a vaccine! The audacity of this wretched family! Here we are trying to mandate vaccines for every man, woman, & child on this planet for every vaccine we can think of (and some we haven’t even thought of yet) and you have the nerve, the complete cheek, to nearly die from a vaccine you didn’t need to take! And didn’t want! Screw that!! Hank had to make an example out of you, you gave him no choice. Imagine if everybody that was killed or injured by a vaccine decided they wanted to make a complaint. It would be chaos….how the Hell would Pharma shareholder’s get an annual dividend ? DO NOT SCREW WITH THE BAD PHARMA NARRATIVE or you will deal with the Wrath of Hank. How in God’s name can Murdoch buy another TV station if all you peasants are dying and getting injured in your droves from our shitty vaccines?
I spoke to Ben Hammond this week and this is what he had to say.
“As many of you may know, I don’t really take to social media for much more than kindly thanking everyone for there generous support and kind words. It has helped myself and family through this horrid experience no family should ever have to go through.
It was not a proud moment for me to have to make the decision to appeal to the public for help, and begin a media campaign for what should be already in place, but here we are still rallying for all of the legal and medical expenses we always face.
As with anything I expected some backlash to what we were doing, especially being such a taboo topic to start with, however our good friend Reasonable Hankypoo decided to take it to the next level, and then some…
I don’t know who you are, or what has driven you to attack my family the way have, but your spineless accusations and fabricated stories absolutely disgust me. You truly have proven to yourself who you really are, from all of the comments on your testimony page.
Im not going to lower myself to your level then get beaten by experience when it comes for me to write more insults for you to add. But I will say, I totally agree with everyone on there, it must be awesome to look at yourself in the mirror every morning, fuckin wanker…
I’m agitated that I’ve been asked to even write something about you, but here is the 20 minutes of my time ill never get back…
Regards
Ben Hammond

PS

If you would like a refund for your $50 Go Fund me donation feel free to provide your details and we can arrange it in good time .
Dr Phyto will deliver it personally?
And one of the most disturbing parts of this story, possibly even more disturbing than Pete Tiernan is that no one, not Merck, not Pfizer, not Jill Hennessy, and certainly not the dodo in question have the slightest idea what causes vaccine injury or death. No one knows why your one day old baby develops auto immune issues after her HepB shot or why a healthy 34 year old male can be killed by a pertussis shot. They have no idea. Nor does your doctor. Until that ‘science is settled’ and the vaccine cartel and their nasty ass trolls actually understand the mechanism behind vaccine injury and death, vaccination has to be a choice.
Soon the CDC will be thoroughly investigated and their heads will be off to jail. Hopefully the trolls that work tirelessly online for them will follow. Here are just a few that deserve a nice long stint.
dorit.png

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss a friend of Phizer.

Dorit Reiss check her twitter profile this women tweets 20 hours a day and is supposed to be a law professor and mother. Where does she find the time? Who funds her? When your child is killed or injured by a vaccine, remember this women’s name.
dorit66k

Dorit Reiss is a mother, law profesor and tweets 20 hours a day.

David-Gorski-Laughing.jpg

Skeptic Dr David Gorski should no better than to promote vaccines as a safe and effective proceudure.

Dr David Gorski. I save my special hate for Doctors that promote vaccination as a safe and effective procedure. These people should, and I suspect do, know better. If any are found to be paid by Pharma to spread Pharma lies and poison and troll vaccine injured families, I believe jail would be too good for them. Siberian salt mines maybe?
edzard_ernst_euroskepcon2015

Edzard Ernst promotes statins and flu shots

Edzard Ernst Funnily enough I had to read this idiots text at university. He is just a tired old skeptic now that promotes statins and flu shots.
Tiernan.jpeg

Peter Tiernan

Peter Tiernan. Online cowardly stalker of women and vaccine damaged families. Knows as much about vaccine science as he does about not doxing himself on national radio.
johncunningham

Dr John Cunningham aka JCBigears

Dr John Cunningham. JCbigears once tried to school me on herd immunity. Like all skeptics he didn’t  read the study before he posted it. Sadly the study he tried to school me on, was one that I’d used in my very own submission in relation to the No Jab No Pay debacle. Poor John, the science wasn’t on his side and, alas, he realised far too late. There is no good science on the mythical 95% herd immunity Pharma likes to spew about. None. Anyone that says otherwise is either bought or an idiot. He too trolls vaccine damaged families in spare time on twitter.One of his victims was Tasha David whose husband and father of her eight children had passed away. This creep spread malicious rumours online that her children were all from different fathers.
jcbigears
 Dr John Cunningham was  maliciously spreading misinformation when he wrote ” It is not surprising that Tasha doesn’t discuss the fact that her “healthy ” children have a different father than the other “sick” ones, and that is more likely that they are suffering from a genetic disorder passed down from their father than anything to do with vaccination. That wouldn’t fit in with her particular brand of .. of I cannot say.” Stay classy John. Gold plated turd.
Patrick Stokes
Patrick Stokes.To be honest, and this will definitely destroy his skeptic reputation, I have a bit of a soft spot for Patrick. From all accounts he is supposed to be a decent guy and he’s definitely not overtly nasty and certainly doesn’t attack vaccine damaged families.  He is, however a journalist guided by his stupid skeptic buddies and Bad Pharma and for this he must be made accountable. Cmon Pat, you’re a nice guy, lose these creepy turds. What would Socrates do?
bernardkeene

Bernard Keene Blogger from Crikey and special friend of Hank.

Bernard Keene. This blogger from Crikey gets a special mention. He may even have less readers than me? Absolute dried out, broken,has been. Special friend of Hank and that can only damn you. Sack the bum Crikey…trust me, no one will notice.
Jane Hansen
Jane-Hansen-Profile.jpg
 Poor old Jane. I’ve been harsh on her over the years. Everyone hates her boss. Everyone hates her newspaper. She has fallen from….well not far from the footpath to the gutter I spose but the gutter it is. Jane’s disastrous foray into the outing of Hank was too good to be true. In an article she authored about mistaken identity and the doxing of an innocent man, she fails to tell her readers that, in a miraculous karmic twist, she knew both men. Went to school with one and sold Pharma lies with another. In another amazing twist, one was called Peter Tierney and the other, Peter Tiernan. Incredible! She failed to mention this of course. Why? Cause it was a big fat lie and poor Jane knows what happens to journos that get caught lying red handed.
wanted-for-genocide-paul-offit
 Dr Paul Offit.
Probably number one on my skeptic scum list. This creep made multi million dollars from the totally unnecessary rotavirus vaccine . What’s rotavirus you may ask? Well you’ve injected your kid with it so maybe you should do more research on it before you criticize those who question its position on the soon to be mandated schedule.
hennessynorisks
Jill Hennessy
I proudly announce Victorian health minister Jill Hennessy ,the inaugural winner of the James Randi Bent Wand award for services to bent science. We hope to present it to her in person some time in the next couple of months. This politician who we pay for, works closely with Reasonable Hank . Does she condone his cowardly attacks against nurses and vaccine damaged families ? Does she condone his despicable attacks on the Hammond Family? If not then she needs to publicly condemn them? Can you please tell the public how much money Big Pharma has donated to you and your party in the last 5 years ?
Henesyhank.jpg

Minister Jill Hennessy  openly supporting online serial abuser of vaccine injured families Reasonable Hank on Twitter.

These are just afew of Big pharmas faithful trolls and servants which makes them responsible for the death and destruction that vaccines cause. If your child is injured or killed by a vaccine don’t forget these faces,  over the next few years I will highlight these creeps and their disservices to humanity.  Whenever a child tragically dies from whooping-cough foundations are set up , Daily telegraph does a front page fundraiser for them, a current affair does a story and a fundraiser for them. When someone is nearly killed by a vaccine you’ll never hear about. Why? Because government and Big Pharma don’t want you to hear about it. If you can assist the Hammond Family in any way here’s a link to their gofundme page
I’ll leave the last word to Tanya’s mum.

In the four years that we have been dealing with Ben’s illness and the hell my family have been put through. We have come across many wonderful people who are now dear friends but sadly we have also had to endure people like reasonable hank.  I get people are very confused by the vaccine dilemma, hell I was too, but thousands of parents/wives/family members cannot be wrong! They cannot all be a ‘coincidence’ it’s just not feasible and as far as Ben’s story goes, well, the hanks of this world and the others, you know who you all are, I might add need to wake the F up.  The rubbish that has been spread about Tanya and Ben is just pathetic and extremely insulting.  He is a real person, he was a quad, he is now walking but has been left with multiple injuries and life time problems  that will put him back in a wheelchair and yes it was the DTap vaccination!  But hank has a way of dissecting bits and pieces of blogs etc  from as far back as when I first started our page and he pastes them to suit his own agenda and make his story sound true and the herd follow.

We began this journey 4 years ago because we believed,and still do, that people need to know that this can happen and if you decide to vaccinate (which is your choice to make) then make sure you educate yourself on what can happen and you are financially covered because it will destroy you.  If that makes us activists, well ok we will wear it, and thank god my daughter is as stubborn as her mother because we have not let their pathetic attempt to shut us up work.  They  did vaccinate and now, because they are very aware of what can go wrong, they don’t, it’s that simple and being slammed by these people for trying to protect others  is just wrong. We will keep on making noises because until vaccines are investigated and tests done the way that all medications should be tested, these injuries will keep on happening, and you never know Hank and (name deleted in the name of an upcoming truce) it might be you if they mandate adult vaccines.

Yours sincerely

Lois Vitler

Proud Mum

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Pseudoskeptics Strange CSICOP connections to pedophilia

Pedophilia Atheists and Pseudoskeptics

childrenssexualencounters

The book Children’s Sexual Encounters with adults- A Scientific Study is published by Prometheus Books founded by Skeptic Paul Kurtz and right hand man to James Randi 

The lifelong dedication of pseudoskeptics to irrationally attacking religious and spiritual institutions and ESP is so gross and organised and widespread and so robotically repeated by thousands in lockstep, that one suspects it’ some kind of undiagnosed illness. Or orchestrated. Or both.

Website subversive thinking has put some effort into researching this and come up with some surprising connections between ardent atheism in its various forms and a publishing empire called Prometheus Books that has the same founder as CSICOP the peak organisation for irrational skepticism and atheism. (James Randi, Richard Wiseman, Michael Shermer etc)

Just the first few paragraphs are presented here about the type of material coming out of the Prometheus Publishing empire.

It will explain the pseudoskeptic pathology as having an alarming dimension.

With links you can check yourself.

Prometheus Books and the pseudoskeptical perversions and other insane and frightening possible consequences of metaphysical naturalism and materialism (militant atheism)

Prometheus Books is the leading publisher of pseudoskeptical, materialist, secular humanist and atheist books in the US.

According to Wikipedia “Prometheus Books is a publishing company founded in August 1969 by Paul Kurtz who also founded the Council for Secular Humanism and co founded the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.  He was chairman of all 3 organisations and passed away in 2012. Prometheus  publishes a range of books including many about science, especially those of a skeptical nature. 

Note that Prometheus was founded by Paul Kurz the atheist and materialist philosopher founder of the pseudoskeptical organisation CSICOP (now called CSI) 

paulkurtz-saunders-randi

Left to Right- Kevin Christopher, Richard Saunders,  Jan Eisler, Skeptic and Prometheus Books founder Paul Kurtz and Skeptics founder James Randi at the 2000 Skeptic Conference in Australia. 

Well if you enter the Prometheus books website and see the section on Human Sexuality, you’ll see titles explicitly or implicitly endorsing promoting and justifying   with pseudo-scientific and “rationalistic” jargon pornography, prostitution, pedophilia, sado masochism, zoophilia, and other sexual aberrations and perversions.

In other sections you’ll see titles supporting abortion an infanticide, or weird behaviours like transvetism.

The original “Human Sexuality” section of Prometheus Books catalog was edited CSICOP/CSI Fellow and International Academy of Humanism Secretariat Dr Vera Bullough who according to Wikipedia was a “member of the editorial board” of Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia

The pseudo-scientific and immoral journal (PAIDIKA) was a pro-paedophilia journal.

According to Wikipedia  The Journal of pedophilia (1987 – 1995) was journal published by the Sticjting Paidika Foundation. Articles drawn from it are available from a number of pro pedophile websites. Its editor was Joseph Geraci, and the editorial board included articles by writers Fritz Bernard,  Edward Brongersma, prof Vera L Bullough and DH (Donald) Mader, some of whom campigned as pro-pedophilia activists.

In this link Bullough is mentioned as someone “who accepts the conclusions of Wilson & Cox (1983) that people with pedophilia are quite normal people who should not be demonized. Some behaviour might be socially incorrect, but that is not the same as pathological. As long as these people limit themselves having fantasies, nothing is wrong. If some people have to change their behaviour, this is a case of re-educating those people, not of treatment or curing an illness”.

People with pedophilic  feelings are normal people? Would YOU swallow such nonsense?

According to Wikipedia “according to the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders” (DSM) pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which the person either has acted on intense sexual urges toward children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.

The disorder is frequently a feature of persons who commit child sexual abuse.

However some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia. In strictly behavioural contexts, the word “pedophilia”  can can also be applied to the act of child sexual abuse itself also called “pedophilic behaviour”.

Pedophiles are not “quite normal people”, they suffer a mental disorder and their behaviour may be potentially destructive to children. The use of euphemisms is a well-known tactic to defend  censurable doctrines and beliefs.

According to an article by Dr Judith Reisman commenting on World Pornography Conference ” The conference featured Paidika The journal of pedophilia editor Vera Bullough and his pedophile editorial colleagues John De Cecca, daniel Tsang and Wayne Dynes– all professors at major American colleges.

Chairing the CSUN “Erotic” section on ” Child pornography” was Harris Mirkin an associate professor of political science at the University of MIssouri, Kansas City. Mirkins 1999 article “The Pattern of Sexual Politics, Feminism Homosexuality and pedophilia (Journal of Homosexuality Vol 37 ) describes the steps the pedophiles need to take to gain social acceptance. He advises pedophiles to advocate for the elimination of phrases like “child molestation” and “child abuse”.  (This is political correctness at work.)

Why was a Secular Humanist  (Professor Bullough) a professional atheist, a member of the editorial  board of a pro-pedophilia journal like Paidika? Why does the “skeptical” atheist and materialist publishing house Prometheus Books endorse this kind of behaviour with its books? Is that part of a materialist and metaphysical naturalist agenda to destroy the values of society? I’ll attempt to respond to some of these questions later. Keep in mind Prometheus Books publish other titles about different topics, including philosophy and science (and I don’t doubt these titles have some value, but it doesn’t justify  promoting of sexual aberrations like pedophilia. Also perversions and aberrations can be seen in religious people too, but again, it doesn’t justify some naturalists aberrations and perversions, moreover you’ll hardly see any Christian or Jew or other current religious organisation promoting these practices as done by Prometheus Books.

Zoophile.jpg

For the moment, lets see some tiles of this “skeptical” and “humanist” publishing organisation.

S&M Studies in Dominance and submission  by Thomas S Weinberg

A Youth in Babylon -Confessions of a trash film King by David Friedman and Don De Nevi

The X-rated Videotape Guides Volumes 1-8 by Robert H Rimmer

The X-Rated Videotape Star Index Volumes 1-3 by Patrick Riley

Raw Talent : The adult Film Industry as seen by its most popular Male Star  by Jerry Butler

The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile by Mark Mathews with an introduction by Vera Bullough (The above mentioned editor of Paidika)

Children’s Sexual Encounters with Adults -a scientific study by C K Li, D J West & T P Woodhouse

Dirty Talk: Diary of a phone sex mistress , By Gary Anthony  & Rocky Bennet

Whips and Kisses: Parting the leather curtain by Mistress Jacqueline

The Q letters: True stores of Sado Masochism by “Sir” John

A commentary on Transvestism ( not a sexual perversion but another possible example of the hidden agenda and the irrationality and immorality of secular humanism and its leading publishing house)

Among some of the weird titles of the books edited by “rationalist” and “scientific” Prometheus books  you can see a book entitled  transvestites : The Erotic Drive to Crossdress by Magnus Hirschfeld This  book tries to make the case for  transvestism as ” a natural extension of the infinite variations of the human personality  (Steve here- does that sound like  the pskeps Multiverse? LOL)

But who is its author? According to Wikipedia Magnus Hirschfeld was “a Gay German Jewish Physician, sex researcher and early gay rights advocate”.

Around 1900 Hirschfeld developed the theory there was a third “intermediate”  sex between men and women. He was interested in a wide variety of sexual and erotic urges at a time when the early taxonomy od sexual identity labels was still being formed.

His scientific work extended that of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and influenced havelock Ellis and Edward Carpenter*

An intermediate sex between men and women? What the hell is that ?

Un surprisingly, “rationalistic” and “scientific” and  “humanist”  Prometheus books   has edited 2 books by Hirschfeld. Interesting isn’t it !

In his book on Uri Geller, journalist Eric Margolis wrote” One book on  the Prometheus book list is a British academic book on child  abuse.  Children’s Sexual Encounters with Adults  republished in the US.with a bright red jacket on which the title is printed in bold black letters  three quarters of an inch high  presumably for the benefit of short-sighted researchers into child sex.

The book consists of hundreds  of detailed case histories  of adults having sex with children. Other Prometheus texts have little claim to being academic.

Cannibalism: from sacrifice to Survival 

The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile   (animal sex obsession)

The breathless orgasm:  A love map  biography of   Asphyxiophilia

Death Dealer The memoirs of the SS Kommandant of Auschwitz

How are we to explain these titles? Remember that metaphysical naturalists, secular humanists, and materialistic atheists ( militant atheists)  don’t believe in objective values (bear in mind this point because it’s absolutely essential to understand the psychological and ideological motivation behind such titles) They have a purely negative philosophy (ie a philosophy based on the negation of traditional relgion and its values)  If they are consistent, they have to embrace relativism and subjectivism in moral topics. According to Richard Dawkins– Now if you then ask me where I get my “ought” statements from that’s a more difficult question. if I say something is wrong, like killing people,I don’t find that as nearly as defensible a statement as “I am distant cousin of an orang-utan”

If its true then, pornography, pedophilia, infanticide, sado masochism, rape, zoophilia suicide, drugs and killing people are not intrinsically bad or wrong. In fact. Dawkins conceded the latter, when complementing the above quote, he said,  The second of those statements is TRUE I can tell you why it’s true – I can bore you to death telling you why it’s true. It’s definitely true. The statement “killing people is wrong”, to me, is not of that character. I would be quite open to persuasion that killing people is right in some circumstances.

It could be argued that in cases of self-defence selective killing is justified

BUT remember

1/ that Dawkins has no objective  standards of value

2/ he is not specifically referring to self-defense

“so his killing people is alright under certain circumstances”  is an open and unspecific statement, fully consistent with the metaphysical naturalist and secular human belief  that human life is not an absolute.

And therefore killing people is not intrinsically bad.

For them, there is no such thing as an absolute value in the universe.

In fact, according to Dawkins,  this Universe has a lack “”at the bottom”of anything like “good” or “evil”.

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. (River Out of Eden page 155)

As said, if the Universe lacks any moral properties or values, then any moral value is objectively non-existent.(because it is not part of the universe) and any concept of value is, necessarily an arbitrary idea posed by the human mind. (which according to the materialists is an illusion because the mind doesn’t exist as such its only a name for some cerebral processes. Also Dawkins documentary title “The Root of all Evil  loses any moral or logical meaning  and its use is sheer rhetoric, since according to Dawkins, Evil doesnt exist as part of the universe (yet he states — Evil religious beliefs are part of this universe , Right?

Thus how could  religion be evil in a universe where evil doesn’t exist?

Dawkins doesn’t seem to be interested in logical consistency and rationality.

Actually Dawkins has conceded that morality is relative.

Science has no method of deciding what is ethical.

That is a matter for individuals and society. (A Devils Chaplain p34)

So now, can you see, dear reader,  how Dawkins is campaigning for the NO RULES fraternity, campaigning to enable pedophilia to propagate sexual perversions as normal, and all of his pseudo-intellectual  BS book writing is to that end?

And his HQ is CSICOP now CSI, with Randi, Shermer, Neil Degrasse Tyson etc     Is it making sense now ? 

Taken from the old website Subversive Thinking a full video transcipt of this article can be found here 

   

  

  

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Prometheus Books and the pseudoskeptical perversions: another insane and frightening possible consequences of metaphysical naturalism and materialis

From the taken down blog Subversive Thinking

 SUNDAY, JANUARY 4, 2009

Prometheus Books is the leading publisher of pseudoskeptical, materialist, secular humanist and atheist books in U.S. According to wikipedia “Prometheus Books is a publishing company founded in August 1969 by Paul Kurtz, who also founded theCouncil for Secular Humanism and co- founded Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is currently the chairman of all three organizations. Prometheus books publishes a range of books, including many about science, especially those of a skeptical nature
Note that Prometheus Books was founded by Paul Kurtz, the atheist and materialist philosopher founder of the pseudoskeptical organization CSICOP (now called CSI).
Well, if you enter to the website of Prometheus Books, and see the section on “Human Sexuality”, you’ll see titles explicitly or implicitly endorsing, promoting and justifying (with pseudo-scientific and “rationalistic” jargon) pornography, prostitution, paedophilia, sado-masochism, zoophilia, and other sexual aberrations and pervertions. In other sections you’ll see titles supporting abortion and infanticide, or weird behaviours like transvestism.
The original “Human Sexuality” section of Prometheus Books catalog was edited by CSICOP/CSI Fellow and International Academy of Humanism Secretariat Dr. Vern Bullough, who according to wikipedia was “a member of the editorial board of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia.”
This pseudo-scietific and immoral journal (Paidika) was a pro-paedophilia journal. According to wikipediaPaidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation. Articles drawn from it are available from a number of pro-pedophile activistwebsites. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-pedophile activists

In this website, Bullough is mentioned as someone who “accepts the conclusions of Wilson & Cox (1983) that people with pedophilic feelings are quite normal people who not should be demonized. Some behavior might be socially incorrect, but that is not the same as pathological. As long as these people limit themselves to have fantasies, nothing is wrong. If some people have to change their behavior, this is a case of re-educating those people, not of treatment or curing an illness.”

People with pedophilic feelings are quite normal people? Would you swallow such nonsense? According to wikipedia: “According to theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM), pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.[4] The disorder is frequently a feature of persons who commit child sexual abuse;[5][6][7]however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.[8] In strictly behavioral contexts, the word “pedophilia” can also be applied to the act of child sexual abuse itself, also called “pedophilic behavior

Pedophiles are not “quate normal people”, they suffer of a mental disorder and their behaviour may be potentially destructive to children. The use of euphemisms is a well-known tactic to defend censurable doctrines and beliefs.

According to this article by Dr.Judith Reisman, comenting on World Pornography Conference: “The conference featured Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia editor Vern Bullough and his pedophile editorial colleagues: John DeCecco, Daniel Tsang and Wayne Dynes — all professors at major American colleges.3 Chairing the CSUN “Erotic” section on “Child Pornography” was Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. Mirkin’s 1999 article, “The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia” (Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 37) describes the steps pedophiles need to take to gain social acceptance. He advises pedophiles to advocate for the elimination of words like “child molestation” and “child abuse.”

Why does a so-called “Secular Humanist” (Bullough) was member of the editorial board of a pro-paedophilia journal like Paidika? Why does the “skeptical”, atheist and materialist publisihing house (Prometheus Books) endorse this kind of behaviour with its books? Is that part of a materialist and metaphysical naturalist agenda to destroy the values of society? I’ll attempt to respond some of these questions later. Keep in mind that Prometheus Books publish other titles about different topics, including philosophy and science (and I don’t doubt some of these titles have some value; but it doesn’t justify the promotiong of sexual aberrations like paedophilia). Also, perversions and aberrations can be seen in religious people too (but again, it doesn’t justify some naturalists’ aberrations and perversions; moreover, hardly you’ll see any Christian or Jews or other current religious organization promoting these practiques like done by Prometheus Books)

For the moment, let’s see some titles of this “skeptical” and “humanist” publishing organization:

S&M Studies in Dominance and Submission, by Thomas S. Weinberg
-A Youth in Babylon: Confessions of a Trash-Film King, by David Friedman & Don DeNevi
The X-Rated Videotape Guides: Volumes 1 – 8, by Robert H. Rimmer
The X-Rated Videotape Star Index: Volumes 1 – 3, by Patrick Riley
Raw Talent: The Adult Film Industry as Seen by its Most Popular Male Star, by Jerry Butler
The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile, by Mark Matthews, Introduction by Vern Bullough (the above mentioned editorial member of Paideka)
Children’s Sexual Encounters With Adults, A Scientific Study, by C.K. Li, D.J. West and T.P. Woodhouse
Dirty Talk: Diary of a Phone Sex Mistress, by Gary Anthony & Rocky Bennett
Whips & Kisses: Parting the Leather Curtain, by Mistress Jacqueline
The Q Letters: True Stories of Sadomasochism, by “Sir” John
A COMMENTARY ON TRANSVESTISM (not a sexual pervertion, but another possible example of the hidden agenda and the irrationality and immorality of secular humanism and its leading publishing house):
Among some of the weird titles of the books edited by the “rationalist” and “scientific” Prometeus Books, you can see a book entitled “Transvestites : The Erotic Drive to Cross-Dress” by Magnus Hirschfeld. This book tries to make the case for transvestism as “a natural extension of the infinite variations of human personality
But who’s its author? According to wikipedia, Magnus Hirschfeld: “was a gay German-Jewish physician, sex researcher, and early gay rights advocate
Around 1900, Hirschfeld developed the theory of a third, “intermediate sex” between men and women. He was interested in the study of a wide variety of sexual and erotic urges, at a time when the early taxonomy of sexual identity labels was still being formed. His scientific work extended that of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and influenced Havelock Ellis and Edward Carpenter
An intermediate sex between men and women? What the hell is that?

Not suprisingly, “rationalistic”, “scientific” and “secular humanist” Prometheus Books has edited two books by Hirschfeld. Interesting, isn’t it?

In his book on Uri Geller, journalist Jonathan Margolis wroteOne book on Prometheus’s list is a British academic text on child abuse. Children’s Sexual Encounters With Adults, republished in the States – with a bright red jacket on which the title is printed in bold black letters three quarters of an inch high, for the benefit, presumably, of short-sighted researchers into child sex. The book consists of hundreds of pages of detailed case histories of adults having sex with children. Others Prometheus texts have little claim to being academic. Cannibalism: From Sacrifice to Survival, The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile [person with a sexual attraction to animals], Whips and Kisses: Parting the Leather Curtain (by Mistress Jacqueline), The Breathless Orgasm: A Lovemap Biography of Asphyxiophilia, Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz …

How can we explain the above titles? Remember that metaphysical naturalists, secular humanists and materialistic atheists don’t believe in objective values (bear in mind this point, because it’s absolutely essential to understand the psychological and ideological motivation behind such titles). They have a purely negative philosophy (i.e. a philosophy based on the negation of traditional religion and its values). If they’re consistent, they have to embrace relativism and subjetivism in moral topics. According to Richard DawkinsNow, if you then ask me where I get my ‘ought’ statements from, that’s a more difficult question. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don’t find that nearly such a defensible statement as ‘I am a distant cousin of an orangutan
If it’s true, then pornography, paedophilia, infanticide, sado-masochism, rape, zoophilia, suicide, drugs and “killing people” are not intrinsically bad or wrong. In fact, Dawkins conceded the latter when, complementing the above quote, he said: “The second of those statements is true, I can tell you why it’s true, I can bore you to death telling you why it’s true. It’s definitely true. The statement ‘killing people is wrong’, to me, is not of that character. I would be quite open to persuasion that killing people is right in some circumstances
It could be argued than in cases of self-defense, selective “killing” is justified. But remember that Dawkins 1)hasn’t objective standards of value; and 2)He is not specifically refering to self-defense; so his “killing people is right under certaing circunstances” idea is an open and inespecific statement, fully consistent with the metaphysical naturalist and secular humanist belief that human life is not an absolute value (and therefore, killing people is not intrinsically bad). For them, there is not such thing as an absolute value in the universe. In fact, according to Dawkins, our universe lack, at the bottom, of any properties like the “good” or the “evil”:
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference“(River Out Of Eden, p. 155)
As said, if the universe lack of moral properties and values, then any moral value is objectively non-existent (because it is not part of the universe); and any concept of value is, necessarily, an arbitrary idea posed by the human mind (which, according to materialists, is an illusion, because the “mind” doesn’t exist as such; it’s only a name for some cerebral processes). Also, Dawkins’ documentary title “The root of all evil” losses any moral and logical meaning and its use is sheer rhetoric, since that according to Dawkins the “evil” doesn’t exist as part of the universe (and after all, religious beliefs are part of this universe, isn’t it? Thus, how could religion be “evil” in an universe where evil doesn’t exist? Dawkins doesn’t seem to be interested in logical consistency and rationality) and no part of the universe can cause the evil if the latter is not a property of the universe at all; and an universe whose observable property is “blind pitiless indiference” is morally irrelevant, since that morality excludes indifference and, on the contrary, implies interest and concern for certain behaviours considered “correct” and consistent avoiding of another ones considered “bad” or “incorrect”. But since that for Dawkins no purpose exists in this universe, you (as an intrinsic and essential part of the universe) can’t have any purpose to do good or bad things, and objective morality is in such view ontologically non-existent). Also, if the universe manifest only “blind pitiless indiference“, how could the human life be objectively important at all; or objectively more important than other material things? After all, the supossed “blind pitiless indifference” of the universe has to be equally valid for the human beings or any other material things (because if the human beings are objectively important or more important, then the universe is not indifferent anymore since that it would be establishing objective status or levels of importance, what makes no sense in an universe “blindly indifferent”)
Actually, Dawkins has conceded that morality is relative: “Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society” (A Devil’s Chaplain, p.34)”
Given that each human being and each society has different standars to judge what’s good and what’s bad, then appealing to “individuals” and to “society” implies moral relativism and subjetivism. (For example, if individual atheists consider that religion is bad; and individuals religious persons consider what religion is good, who’s going to decide who’s right? They both can’t be right, because they’re asserting incompatible ethical claims regarding the same fact: religion. But for Dawkins, no objective moral standard exist to settle the question, since that for him “this is a matter for individuals and for society“, so when individuals and societies disagree, you can’t appeal to any reference to resolve the controversy)
In this sense, as has been correctly written by logically consistent metaphysical naturalist and atheist Keith Augustine in his article defending moral subjetivismI think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral laws.Moral laws are maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions are to be deemed moral or immoral. But how could such laws exist in the absence of any mind or sentience in the universe at all? Are moral laws objective in the way that laws of nature are? They do not seem to be, for few would argue that “murder is wrong” existed in some Platonic realm of ideas when galaxies were forming over ten billion years ago and there was no sign life or consciousness anywhere in the universe. The use of the word “law” implies an objective existence of unchanging moral maxims independently of sentience. Yet it appears that there can be nothing objective about so-called “moral laws”, because it seems absurd on its face to say that maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions of sentient beings are moral or immoral could exist in the absence of sentience.

It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them.”
The key point here is that, for fully consistent metaphysical naturalists and secular humanists, objective moral values don’t and cannot exist; and morality has a purely arbitrary basis. In other words, if metaphysical naturalism (and its implied secular humanism) is true, then objective moral values don’t exist. Therefore, IF objective moral values exist, metaphysical naturalism (and secular humanism) is false.
As consequence of a consistently applied and assumed view of moral values as relative and subjetive, some metaphysical naturalists and atheists seem to support suicide in some circunstances. According metaphysical naturalist, atheist and self-proclaimed “skeptic” Richard Carrier: “When we have exhausted all options, and still conclude there is no longer any prospect of happiness, death becomes an acceptable alternative” (Sense and Goodness without God, p. 342)
Death as an “acceptable alternative” (i.e. suicide, in some cases), killing people “under certain circunstances” (unspecified circunstances!), and other insane beliefs like those proves that, for metaphysical naturalists, secular humanists and philosophical materialists, human life is not an absolute and objective value (such thing doesn’t exist for them), but a relative or subjetive value dependent on contingent and arbitrary circunstances and criteria (like the opinion of individuals and societies). If human life is not an absolute and objective value, then you can understand that the values destroyed by pornography, paedophilia, rape, infanticide, zoophilia, drugs consumption, etc. are not absolute either. Thus, these behaviours aren’t intrinsically immoral (or bad or wrong) for metaphysical naturalists and secular humanists (and this fully explain some Prometheus’ book titles on sexual behaviour).
To avoid misunderstandings, let’s to be explicit in my position. I’m not arguing that Dawkins, Augustine or Carrier support the behaviours promoted and endorsed by Prometheus Books (probably, they don’t). My argument is that these behaviours aren’t intrisically inconsistent with metaphysical naturalism and secular humanism, enabling some of its followers consistently hold both metaphysical naturalism (and secular humanism) and one (or many) of the above practiques (like Bullough, who was an supporter of paedophilia and at the same time a “secular humanist” and metaphysical naturalist).
In other words, the above behaviours are absolutely consistent with metaphysical naturalism, secular humanism and materialistic atheism. But this negative (and destructive) philosophy of life has some additional insane beliefs, for example:
-The belief that there is not free will (which logically entails that you’re not responsable of your acts; being it a potential “explanation” of any aberrative and perverted behaviour like paedophilia or child pornography). In addition to destroying morality, a determistic conception of human beings also destroys rationalitity because, as argue philosopher Peter Williams, “Determinism destroys the possibility of rationality. If this is so and this fact is recognised, then it is impossible to rationally believe in determinism. Moreover, if determinism were true, it would be impossible for anyone to rationally believe anything:

Given certain evidences, I ‘ought’ to believe certain things. I am intellectually responsible for drawing certain conclusions, given certain pieces of evidence. . . If I ought to believe something, then I must have the ability to choose to believe it or not believe it. If one is to be rational, one must be free to choose her beliefs in order to be reasonable. . . But such deliberations make sense only if I assume that what I am going to do or believe is ‘up to me’ – that I am free to choose and, thus, I am responsible for irrationality if I choose inappropriately. [46]

However, it is a necessary presupposition of rationality and rational pursuits (such as philosophy) that rationality is possible. Therefore, determinism, which rules out libertarian freedom, is necessarily false (not just contingently false, i.e. not simply possibly true but actually untrue, but not even possibly true). If determinism is necessarily false, any world-view that requires determinism to be true must also be necessarily false. Naturalism and physicalism both imply determinism. Therefore both naturalism and physicalism are necessarily false: ‘It is self-refuting to argue that one ought to choose physicalism. . . on the basis of the fact that one should see that the evidence is good for physicalism. . .

Note that metaphysical naturalism, destroying the possibility of rationality, makes science and philosophy impossible. Its insane beliefs, while presenting themselves as consistent with “science” and “reason”, actually implies the impossibility of reason and science.

A common fallacy used by metaphysical naturalists is argue that “reasons” are causes too; thus you’re not free of unavoidable causes. The fallacy (of equivocation) consists in to identify “reasons” (which applies to conceptual matters) with physical causes (which only applies to physical, mechanical or empirical phenomena). Reasons aren’t physical causes, they’re the foundations of logical conclusions and decisions and have a normative character. For example, in the physical world, the cause X of Y phenomenon is previous to it (i.e., no physical causes are posterior to their effects).

However, conceptual reasons can be posterior to conclusions or actions (in fact, most people have preconceived ideas, and then seek for “reasons” to support them… a phenomenon known as “rationalizing”). Thus, physical causes are previous (or, in some cases, simultaneous) to their effects. But conceptual reasons can be actually previous, simultaneous or posterior to any conceptual conclusion (only in a strict logical sense, can be asserted that reasons must be previous to a conclusion, i.e conclusions and actions should be based on previous rational reasons) since such reasons are not physical (i.e. they are not physical objects ruled by physical causes).

More importantly (from an ethical, personal and social viewpoint) is that scientific evidence support the conclusion that people who doesn’t believe in free will are more prone to cheat (because they feel no personal responsability to their actions… after all, these actions were unavoidable!). According to this recent scientific study: “it is well established that changing people’s sense of responsibility can change their behavior. But what would happen if people came to believe that their behavior was the inevitable product of a causal chain beyond their control — a predetermined fate beyond the reach of free will?

Surprisingly, the link between fatalistic beliefs and unethical behavior has never been examined scientifically — until now. In two recent experiments, psychologists Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of British Columbia decided to explore this knotty philosophical issue in the lab, and they figured out an innovative way to do it.

Vohs and Schooler set out to see if otherwise honest people would cheat and lie if their beliefs in free will were manipulated.

The psychologists gave college students a mathematics exam. The math problems appeared on a computer screen, and the subjects were told that a computer glitch would cause the answers to appear on the screen as well. To prevent the answers from showing up, the students had to hit the space bar as soon as the problems appeared.

In fact, the scientists were observing to see if the participants surreptitiously used the answers instead of solving the problems honestly on their own. Prior to the math test, Vohs and Schooler used a well-established method to prime the subjects’ beliefs regarding free will: some of the students were taught that science disproves the notion of free will and that the illusion of free will was a mere artifact of the brain’s biochemistry whereas others got no such indoctrination.

The results were clear: those with weaker convictions about their power to control their own destiny were more apt to cheat when given the opportunity as compared to those whose beliefs about controlling their own lives were left untouched.

Vohs and Schooler then went a step further to see if they could get people to cheat with unmistakable intention and effort. In a second study, the experimenters set up a different deception: they had the subjects take a very difficult cognitive test. Then, the subjects solved a series of problems without supervision and scored themselves. They also “rewarded” themselves $1 for each correct answer; in order to collect, they had to walk across the room and help themselves to money in a manila envelope.

The psychologists had previously primed the participants to have their beliefs in free will bolstered or reduced by having them read statements supporting a deterministic stance of human behavior. And the results were just as robust. As reported in the January issue of Psychological Science, this study shows that those with a stronger belief in their own free will were less apt to steal money than were those with a weakened belief.

Although the results of this study point to a significant value in believing that free will exists, it clearly raises some significant societal questions about personal beliefs and personal behavior.”

Thus, if people who believe and feel that free will doesn’t exist are prone to cheat (an expression of personal dishonesty), and metaphysical naturalism entails the belief that free will doesn’t exist, THEN it follows that metaphysical naturalism entails a belief that makes its supporters/followers more prone to cheating and personal dishonesty (and independent evidence confirms such logical deduction, as you can see in this example; also in this and in this .)

-The belief that mind or consciousness doesn’t have any causal efficacy (because only physical entities, like a brain, have causal power). It entails that your mind has no causal effect on reality, being your consciousness “nothing but” a powerless effect of your neurophysiology.
Such belief is argueably false (on empirical grounds).
-The belief that we’re only a “by-product” of matter, without any spiritual or trascendental dimension (which implies that humal life doesn’t have an objective sense or purpose, except the one that we wish, subjectively, to assign it). In a psychological and existencial sense, if pushed consistently this view through its ultimate implications, it implies existential despair too. Indirectly, it could explain too the common traits of many atheists (superciliousness, intellectual megalomany, arrogance, bigotry, antagonism, fanaticism, hostile and aggresive ad hominem language, sectarian elitism, intolerance to different opinions, self-indulgence and other irrational traits only seen in some fundamentalist religious people)
Do you imagine what would happen if metaphysical naturalism, secular humanism and its potentially immoral, intellectually poor, philosophically weak, emotionally negative, and self-defeating and destructively insane set of beliefs become the creed of most people on Earth?
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment