Jon, I enjoy your writings and generally agree but you’re missing the key component required to get to the truth which is what we’re seeking. In a court room evidence is provided orally under oath and physically sometimes in written form. Unfortunately 100% of the evidence and testimony is not truthful because people lie under oath, evid…
Jon, I enjoy your writings and generally agree but you’re missing the key component required to get to the truth which is what we’re seeking. In a court room evidence is provided orally under oath and physically sometimes in written form. Unfortunately 100% of the evidence and testimony is not truthful because people lie under oath, evidence can be tampered with, and even jurors can be bribed and threatened.,, but “Cross examination” is the one tool where the oral and written word can be challenged forcing a response and designed to force the judge and jurors to think, to carefully examine the evidence, and to ask for the proof. Of course cross examination alone doesn’t guarantee truth or justice because life isn’t perfect but it expands the opportunity to validate both the oral and written word.
Actually, no, because cross examination is selective and the person testifying may only answer the question, stated in that specific way, that the examiner asks. It is always slanted to get to the conclusion that side wants. Judges and jurors are rarely if ever given the entire, unbiased, objective truth. Anyone concerned with the facts on the so called virus, from this current time and the way back through history, can look at the facts for themselves. They can see all of the written words, the studies, the conclusions, the methods, and the data. Now, the problem comes into play as to who funded these studies and how they may have been falsified. So here you are, back to the fact that in order to prove any pathogenic virus that causes disease exists you MUST show undeniable proof of it's existence and show that it causes disease with the same symptoms repeatedly. If you cannot do that and have not shown it in writing then it's not a scientific fact and cannot be relied upon to make any diagnosis or other actions against any person or group of people.
We don’t disagree about studies paid for by those with an agenda and not seeking truth. My comments were not about a virus but about the best process for an open dialog seeking the truth and I said cross examination is not a perfect tool. If I was smart enough to participate in a public discussion I would be willing to state my case and also willing to accept cross examination challenging my position and i would be prepared to defend my position and provide my supporting evidence and written documentation. Science is not static and is constantly in flux from the benefit of new information. I have a tendency to question someone not willing to defend their position…but that’s just me.
I agree that if not willing to defend a position that is suspect. I guess I'm not sure exactly who you think is unwilling to defend their "position"? I'm also not sure why so many keep insisting on debate and dialog when the facts are right there for all to see. It's not opinion we are debating. It's all in black and white and for all to see. For those that cannot comprehend technical jargon, which is understandable, there are multiple ways to decipher the lingo, or, one can listen or read several of those that have done just that, people they believe from experience and perhaps recommendations, that are trustworthy. Cross examination is for subjects that have perceptions and subjective interpretations and opinions, as well as yes, to dig for the basic facts. In the case of scientific findings none of those apply. In my view, the problems lie in the fact that people, generally, want things predigested and spoon fed, warmly delivered, and it can't be too far out of their safety zone or it's automatically rejected and they will find ways to discredit or dismiss the facts. Who is it exactly that you believe is not willing to defend their "position"? When all is laid bare on the table, such as Jon does, it's easy to see why that person has a particular position. When facts are presented that are verifiable, how can any other position be valid and why would it need defending?
I would like to see the Director of the CDC, the FDA, and NIH along with Dr. Fauci testify under oath in a public setting where doctors, scientist, and medical researchers can ask questions supported by verifiable data.
Oh! I understand now. I agree totally. For some reason I was under the impression you were referring to Jon , Cowan, Kaufman, Lanka, and the like who have presented the documents that show no scientific proof of pathogenic viruses existing and causing disease. My apologies.
Jon, I enjoy your writings and generally agree but you’re missing the key component required to get to the truth which is what we’re seeking. In a court room evidence is provided orally under oath and physically sometimes in written form. Unfortunately 100% of the evidence and testimony is not truthful because people lie under oath, evidence can be tampered with, and even jurors can be bribed and threatened.,, but “Cross examination” is the one tool where the oral and written word can be challenged forcing a response and designed to force the judge and jurors to think, to carefully examine the evidence, and to ask for the proof. Of course cross examination alone doesn’t guarantee truth or justice because life isn’t perfect but it expands the opportunity to validate both the oral and written word.
Actually, no, because cross examination is selective and the person testifying may only answer the question, stated in that specific way, that the examiner asks. It is always slanted to get to the conclusion that side wants. Judges and jurors are rarely if ever given the entire, unbiased, objective truth. Anyone concerned with the facts on the so called virus, from this current time and the way back through history, can look at the facts for themselves. They can see all of the written words, the studies, the conclusions, the methods, and the data. Now, the problem comes into play as to who funded these studies and how they may have been falsified. So here you are, back to the fact that in order to prove any pathogenic virus that causes disease exists you MUST show undeniable proof of it's existence and show that it causes disease with the same symptoms repeatedly. If you cannot do that and have not shown it in writing then it's not a scientific fact and cannot be relied upon to make any diagnosis or other actions against any person or group of people.
We don’t disagree about studies paid for by those with an agenda and not seeking truth. My comments were not about a virus but about the best process for an open dialog seeking the truth and I said cross examination is not a perfect tool. If I was smart enough to participate in a public discussion I would be willing to state my case and also willing to accept cross examination challenging my position and i would be prepared to defend my position and provide my supporting evidence and written documentation. Science is not static and is constantly in flux from the benefit of new information. I have a tendency to question someone not willing to defend their position…but that’s just me.
I agree that if not willing to defend a position that is suspect. I guess I'm not sure exactly who you think is unwilling to defend their "position"? I'm also not sure why so many keep insisting on debate and dialog when the facts are right there for all to see. It's not opinion we are debating. It's all in black and white and for all to see. For those that cannot comprehend technical jargon, which is understandable, there are multiple ways to decipher the lingo, or, one can listen or read several of those that have done just that, people they believe from experience and perhaps recommendations, that are trustworthy. Cross examination is for subjects that have perceptions and subjective interpretations and opinions, as well as yes, to dig for the basic facts. In the case of scientific findings none of those apply. In my view, the problems lie in the fact that people, generally, want things predigested and spoon fed, warmly delivered, and it can't be too far out of their safety zone or it's automatically rejected and they will find ways to discredit or dismiss the facts. Who is it exactly that you believe is not willing to defend their "position"? When all is laid bare on the table, such as Jon does, it's easy to see why that person has a particular position. When facts are presented that are verifiable, how can any other position be valid and why would it need defending?
I would like to see the Director of the CDC, the FDA, and NIH along with Dr. Fauci testify under oath in a public setting where doctors, scientist, and medical researchers can ask questions supported by verifiable data.
Oh! I understand now. I agree totally. For some reason I was under the impression you were referring to Jon , Cowan, Kaufman, Lanka, and the like who have presented the documents that show no scientific proof of pathogenic viruses existing and causing disease. My apologies.
No apology required. I’m not a doctor but agree with Jon regarding viruses… were we disagree is on the best way to inform the public.