With due respect to: M. Nathaniel Mead • Stephanie Seneff • Russ Wolfinger • Jessica Rose • Kris Denhaerynck • Steve Kirsch • Peter A. McCullough and all other researchers who have lived the same situation.
This article, like many others retracted before it, is labelled "Peer reviewed".
One question remains and will remain as long as artic…
With due respect to: M. Nathaniel Mead • Stephanie Seneff • Russ Wolfinger • Jessica Rose • Kris Denhaerynck • Steve Kirsch • Peter A. McCullough and all other researchers who have lived the same situation.
This article, like many others retracted before it, is labelled "Peer reviewed".
One question remains and will remain as long as articles are submitted for approval to " Peer reviewer " who have no hesitation in betraying the fundamental ethics we have a right to expect from their position.
My questiion:
"Why do you insist on publishing your articles in these journals instead of developing a parallel system of scientific publications that would be uncensored in an electronic format only?
Scientists, who have so much to offer the world and free science, I implore you to free yourselves by pooling your knowledge and resources and developing a website where freedom of expression will be the rule.
The only way to defeat a system is not to attack it head-on, but to build a parallel system whose efficiency will demonstrate the corruption, inefficiency, dangerousness and obsolescence of the current one, whose absolute control by the dictatorial power of money has become obvious.
Building such a system will not be easy, but you and all your colleagues, who have experienced the ignominy of seeing themselves swept aside by the powers that be, are the only ones who can lay the foundations, because you know all the ins and outs.
Your science, your courage, your determination and the admiration we have for you, which you richly deserve, all make it necessary to build such an infrastructure.
If it is true that the truth liberates, then please liberate humanity with the truth of a science freed from the shackles of dictatorship.
Thanks for your comment, which is in alignment with efforts long underway before the retraction. I have been working on exactly such a system since the day of the retraction, and it's good to see others affirming the need. Stay tuned!
Yes, just like our very successful (for the communists) Public School System, create a truthful parallel system that cannot be bought-out or unduely influenced by the blob. Have it available for the public after a short while, too. That means the research funding system, and it's funding by tax dollars "for the greater good" is treason by our own constitution, and political ties must be cut. The established system is so entrenched and successful in their deceitful narratives, why fight it when we have the means to just defund and let them dry on the vine, as they should.
We have a long way to go to get to truth. Lies are an abomination to a civil society. A form of government that must lie and deceive to gain the foot in the door like a thief must be prosecuted early and often out of existence, and only teach the truth.
If the habit of thinking critically became widespread in a society, it would prevail everywhere, since it is a way of dealing with life's problems.
The glowing words of any orator would not cause panic in people educated in this way.
They take time to believe and are capable, without difficulty and without the need for certainty, of holding things to be probable to varying degrees.
They can wait for the facts, then weigh them up without ever allowing themselves to be influenced by the emphasis or confidence with which proposals are put forward by one party or another.
They can resist those who appeal to their deepest prejudices or who use flattery.
Education in this critical capacity is the only education that can be said to produce good citizens.
With due respect to: M. Nathaniel Mead • Stephanie Seneff • Russ Wolfinger • Jessica Rose • Kris Denhaerynck • Steve Kirsch • Peter A. McCullough and all other researchers who have lived the same situation.
This article, like many others retracted before it, is labelled "Peer reviewed".
One question remains and will remain as long as articles are submitted for approval to " Peer reviewer " who have no hesitation in betraying the fundamental ethics we have a right to expect from their position.
My questiion:
"Why do you insist on publishing your articles in these journals instead of developing a parallel system of scientific publications that would be uncensored in an electronic format only?
Scientists, who have so much to offer the world and free science, I implore you to free yourselves by pooling your knowledge and resources and developing a website where freedom of expression will be the rule.
The only way to defeat a system is not to attack it head-on, but to build a parallel system whose efficiency will demonstrate the corruption, inefficiency, dangerousness and obsolescence of the current one, whose absolute control by the dictatorial power of money has become obvious.
Building such a system will not be easy, but you and all your colleagues, who have experienced the ignominy of seeing themselves swept aside by the powers that be, are the only ones who can lay the foundations, because you know all the ins and outs.
Your science, your courage, your determination and the admiration we have for you, which you richly deserve, all make it necessary to build such an infrastructure.
If it is true that the truth liberates, then please liberate humanity with the truth of a science freed from the shackles of dictatorship.
Yours respectfully
Thanks for your comment, which is in alignment with efforts long underway before the retraction. I have been working on exactly such a system since the day of the retraction, and it's good to see others affirming the need. Stay tuned!
Yes, just like our very successful (for the communists) Public School System, create a truthful parallel system that cannot be bought-out or unduely influenced by the blob. Have it available for the public after a short while, too. That means the research funding system, and it's funding by tax dollars "for the greater good" is treason by our own constitution, and political ties must be cut. The established system is so entrenched and successful in their deceitful narratives, why fight it when we have the means to just defund and let them dry on the vine, as they should.
We have a long way to go to get to truth. Lies are an abomination to a civil society. A form of government that must lie and deceive to gain the foot in the door like a thief must be prosecuted early and often out of existence, and only teach the truth.
If the habit of thinking critically became widespread in a society, it would prevail everywhere, since it is a way of dealing with life's problems.
The glowing words of any orator would not cause panic in people educated in this way.
They take time to believe and are capable, without difficulty and without the need for certainty, of holding things to be probable to varying degrees.
They can wait for the facts, then weigh them up without ever allowing themselves to be influenced by the emphasis or confidence with which proposals are put forward by one party or another.
They can resist those who appeal to their deepest prejudices or who use flattery.
Education in this critical capacity is the only education that can be said to produce good citizens.
William Graham Sumner