Teachers have to teach what they are told to teach...and most of the time reading, writing, and arithmetic is very low on the list of things to be taught. Our schools are into "mind control" and making our kids and grandkids a bunch of robots who cannot think for theirselves or have any common sense.
Not to argue that the youth of today are all prodigies, but don't you think there's a lot selective editing in these shows? Some of the Fox shows, in particular, do a lot of that, asking college kids if they know who the president was during the Civil War, who our first president was, or who our current president is, and I think it's quite possible that they ask these questions of a lot of kids who can reasonably answer these questions, but who are then cut from the segment. I have known a lot of much younger children, even, who have learned things that I didn't know at their age. These shows are good entertainment because we can laugh at the stupidity of the younger generation, but are they truly representative?
Now these so-called scientists are saying do not do research it might be dangerous. If you do you just might come up with a different opinion than what we want, you to have. Just listen to us as we know everything. Don't Do Your Own Research!!! - #PropagandaWatch
But Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the law to find out what is in it. I challenged my Congressman about the Affordable Care Act, he had a copy at a townhall meeting. It was HUGE and he said, "If I read laws like this it would be all that I would be doing." Uhmmmmmmm….. We DO need to do our own research because those who represent us do not. (But if we do, we are conspiracists.)
Sometimes doing your own research is great and sometimes no so great depending on how much study one is actually willing to perform and the subject one is studying. Just as an example, with all of the information available on line, more and more people are self diagnosing medical problems often using a random start and stop method of research. People forget to look for accredited sites and sometimes opt for a site that simply agrees with their own diagnosis and will offer the big buck cure because as we all know, the more it costs, the better it cures. Politics is another item of ill study. Instead of seeking out the more accurate references and resources, folks will naturally go to some site that they think best represents their own point of view and believe it to be true with no further research. Research means that a person is willing to leave no stone unturned to formulate a complete analysis of any given subject but more often than not, either loss of interest or just plain laziness enters into the picture and the saying, “a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all” comes into play. Which, by the bye, is generally what most politicians hope for. They give out just enough biased information to satisfy the “average” citizen knowing that he or she will not go any further than what they are being told.
Real research means you need to step outside of the box and look at alternative views Because if you stay within the bounds of the subject you are looking for you will get the results everyone got and not necessarily the truth. For example medical you can research all the medical web sites. They will agree with the MD or you can go to the alternative medical people and get something different. Research means you do not agree with either but find why one works and the other dose not. Dr Joel Wallach was a veterinarian and had books published proving minerals were very important on health and would argue with doctors saying why are you not curing this particular disease as we cured it in animals 50/60 years ago. He went on to becoming a ND and using the same treatment for animals on humans he got the same result. There seems to be a handcuffs on knowledge for the purpose of control. If you step out of the status quo you are called a conspiracy nut. The status quo is what they [people in control] what you to believe. The science on climate, medical, our ancestors, should be all questioned
Whatever your own opinions or politics might be, I would think that it would scare everyone to realize that our access to information is being severely curtailed. Even the marvelous invention of the Internet is of little use when one political or ideological faction controls access to information. Oh, you might say that Google is a private company so they have the right to manipulate their search engine however they wish. Twitter, and Facebook too, are private companies that have the right to decide who can use their platforms and what they can say there. To an extent, that's true, except that each of these companies enjoys privileges far greater than that which is extended to private citizens. For that matter, monopoly laws were intended to prevent just this type of situation from developing. Sure, someone else can create a Facebook-like platform or one like Twitter, and there are several of them, but they can't really compete. Putting the legalities aside, it should worry everyone when fully qualified medical professionals are not allowed to be heard. You can reject what they say, certainly, but they are not even allowed to be heard. The Social Media giants have decided to let WHO set the standard, and anyone who differs from the World Health Organization is removed from their platforms. When only one side is able to present an argument, we are robbed of the opportunity to weigh the facts, the pros, the cons, and anything else, and make a decision. But it's not just Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Big Tech is making the decisions for you and doing their best to prevent you from even hearing any differing opinions. It goes further than that, too. When I said earlier that someone can create their own platform, the problem isn't limited to the problem of competing with Big Tech. If they consider you to be a threat to the agenda that they have signed onto, they can shut your site down. One after another, people who have posted their videos on their own domains, so that people can still access them after they've been removed from Youtube, Facebook and Twitter are finding that their sites are being shut down due to threats against their web host. That goes way beyond good old American competition. It's the equivalent of setting fire to your competitor's building and preventing the fire department from responding to the call. I know it doesn't, perhaps because some people are comfortable letting someone else make their decisions for them, but this should bother everyone. It's not just Big Tech, either, and it's not restricted to coronavirus information. Since Trump became president, more than 95% of the news coverage of his presidency has been frantically negative. Not just negative, but crazily negative. The five percent that hasn't been negative has probably come from Fox News, although Fox isn't a whole lot better than the others. While Trump has been the focus of a large-scale media campaign, it's not just Trump. When you watch the news on CNN or MSNBC, which are probably the worst, although ABC News isn't a whole lot better, you're getting a highly slanted version of the news, one that either leaves out anything that doesn't fit the progressive agenda or explains it away, which shouldn't be the task of a news show. The same is true of pretty much every newspaper. This isn't restricted to Big Tech and the media either. Bringing this back on topic with this thread, science has become mostly about furthering an agenda. Where the science relates to anything of importance to the progressive globalist agenda, whether it be climate change, a virus, or something else, the end to any scientific exploration is predetermined. To be sure, there are scientists who are still interested in actual science, but these aren't the ones you will see on television. For one thing, someone has to fund them, and the funders will want a return on their investment. If they are able to get funding, their work won't be cited by the media, and articles written about their findings won't be shared widely through social media. No, if their findings threaten the progressive global agenda, the media won't be reporting on it and anyone who publishes it will soon find that it cannot be shared through social media or found in search engine queries. When someone does bring them up in a public setting, they will be told that they are not credible, regardless of their credentials. The fact that scientists will actually come out and tell people that doing their own research is dangerous should be an insult to anyone's intelligence, and red flags should pop up everywhere.
There was a scientist/naturalist interviewed on TV he was saying that he approach the university and other groups trying to raise money for a study to find the cause of the small rodent declining numbers heading for extinction. He was turned down for any grants. He resubmitted the request to saying global warming was cause of the extinction of this rodent. He was offered all the money and resources he needed to do the study.This is bias before the study even started
Agree totally. Greg Caton was offering Cansema to cure skin cancer when I found him 20 years ago. I actually used it after I was told I was going to have to lose a good portion of my nose. But I fretted for a while before using it because there were two sites showing the horrible consequences of using it. Two women's pictures of their faces eaten off! But just the two by who knows what source. Caton had numerous annecdotes and pictures of satisfied customers (money back guarantee. When did you get that from your cancer doctor?) Then the FDA stepped in. He moved his operation to Bermuda. They went after him there, took him to court and put him in prison for four years. Greg moved his operation to Equador with it's non extradition treaty. They went down and kidnapped him and put him back in prison! He hurt no one, unlike lots of oncologists. His product WORKED. Several copy cats whose product did not work were left alone. One even took his company's name with no consequence. I have used other natural products for cancer on myself and my dogs. But an actual sanctioned cure for cancer would hurt a very large industry!
Who are the so-called scientists who do not want us to have a different opinion? As someone who spent 6 years mastering the fine art of research and now stresses to thousands of college students the proper way to research, simply stating that "these so-called scientists" is a biased first person opinion. The issue is the source used for research, which can influence a person to make a bad decision. If someone who wants marijuana to be legalized only uses websites that promote that very agenda, that is not a reliable source. To influence a legislator, that person needs medical data backing the claim that it is harmless. Taking medical advice from the president is also not a reliable source because he is not an expert in the field, especially when he rejects experts' advice. When I researched the virus, I used peer-reviewed medical articles dating back to the first SARS outbreak to the current medical information. I also read autopsy reports, which were totally interesting. Research involves looking at every angle of something, like the HLA genes and ACE2 receptors of humans and how these things are affected have an affect on the virus--why some people get it worse than others. I think the worse thing people can do is watch propaganda videos on youtube because propaganda makes people paranoid.
Some research for you. The US is not the only country banning that stuff. A 2014 case study of black salve (Cansema) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4132006/ AU dept of health https://www.tga.gov.au/community-qa/black-salve-red-salve-and-cansema AU University of Queensland https://medicine.uq.edu.au/article/2018/05/science-or-snake-oil-what-black-salve NZ Ministry of Health https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/safety/ews/2013/black-salve.asp JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/479092 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...et=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=479092
The research into anything medical needs to look first at who owns the medical system it was taken over by the Rockefeller in the early 1900s and now it is just what you expect a business of not curing but making more costumers for the drug companies they own. You say people with an agenda would that not be the agenda of a business
As opposed to the propaganda videos they show on CNN? Choosing to only believe government-approved propaganda isn't necessarily a useful strategy, either. It might be easier, however. Although they don't have a lock on the tactic, propaganda is most often associated with governments that ensure that all "credible" sources agree with whatever it is that they're selling.
As far as the president making a medical suggestion of using or investigating a certain medicine. He was probably advised by a medical system outside of the drug controlled medical system, like the DOD who are not own my drug companies. I have some of their research that is surprising
oI and about 10,000 other users would have testified on behalf of Caton if it were allowed. I bought my first product from a man In Australia when Caton was indisposed. My favorite article was a lone aussie writer who went on and on about camsema's use in animals including instructions on how to use it as it was not t