Says the person whose well thought out and articulate "adult" response was:I am good with that. If you aren’t capable of actually engaging in an adult conversation I am fine with you relying on whatever makes you somehow feel superior. Even if it is foolishness.
That was the entire post.
I thought negative was fairly clear. Did you have to get your dictionary out to look for the definition?
Au contraire, MAGA is indeed a "death cult", your "Negative" response notwithstanding.
If you aren’t capable of actually engaging in an adult conversation I am fine with you relying on whatever makes you somehow feel superior. Even if it is foolishness.
Isn't that where the lefties here end up 99% of the time?I am good with that. If you aren’t capable of actually engaging in an adult conversation I am fine with you relying on whatever makes you somehow feel superior. Even if it is foolishness.
Its laughable you would defend the obvious corruption and the revolving door between pharmaceutical companies and the agencies that they are supposed to be regulating them. That's a conflict of interest.
A university maybe. I don't care where but there shouldn't be a revolving door between the pharmaceutical companies and the agencies that are supposed to(but haven't) regulated those companies. Thats a conflict of interest which doesn't seem to bother you.
www.midwesterndoctor.com
Article:
Why Did The FDA Hide Vaccine Injuries?
How Peter Marks' role in the COVID vaccine debacle exposed the flaws in America's toxic health bureaucracy
Grok summary of his article:
-Marks' Role in Vaccine Mishandling: Despite lacking vaccinology expertise, Marks accelerated COVID-19 vaccine approvals, pressured dissenting FDA scientists (e.g., Marion Gruber and Philip Krause, who resigned in protest), and concealed injury reports while publicly claiming vaccines were "safe and effective." Evidence includes his oversight of 22 gene therapy approvals (some controversial, like Sarepta's Elevidys, linked to a patient death) and his 2023 World Vaccine Congress keynote dismissing hesitancy as "crazy." His April 2025 resignation letter defends Warp Speed, boasts of reducing COVID morbidity (contradicted by data showing higher vaccine risks), and accuses HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of seeking "subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies" rather than transparency.
-Fake Empathy and PR Tactics: Modern medicine relies on scripted empathy (e.g., "I'm sorry to hear that") due to time pressures and insurance incentives, rooted in Edward Bernays' early 20th-century PR strategies that prioritize sellable narratives over facts. Examples include YouTuber Dr. Mike's "empathetic" debates with anti-vaxxers, which use unchallenged falsehoods (e.g., VAERS overreports injuries, despite a 2011 AHRQ study showing <1% reporting rate) and gaslighting victims. Marks exemplified this by stonewalling vaccine-injured groups like React19, using excuses like "correlation is not causation" and blaming healthcare failures, while privately assuring care but publicly prioritizing mandates.
-Regulatory Evasion and Injury Denial: Drawing from React19 documents and timelines (2020–2022), the article details ignored signals: NIH confirmed mRNA reactions in December 2020 but published a flawed July 2021 study attributing issues to "functional neurological disorder" (stress). Marks dismissed severe cases (e.g., AIDS-like illnesses, paraplegia) in meetings, lied about reviewing Pfizer data to Robert Malone, and suppressed DNA contamination concerns. This "regulatory blindness" is likened to a cult, where proponents avoid debates (e.g., Peter Hotez rejecting $2.5 million offers) to evade scrutiny, a shift from pre-1997 media exposés on vaccine risks.
-Historical Context: The FDA's 1906 origins under Harvey Wiley (who fought adulterated food/drugs but was ousted by lobbyists) contrast with today's industry capture. Pre-FTC pharma ad legalization, vaccine debates were common; post, they've been embargoed under "public health" pretexts.
What, did you expect dude to go home and starve to death?
That's not true that there isn't any more research at universities anymore.
Nobody is restricting where that big pharma shill works. Once again you have no problem with the obvious conflict of interest, but your concern only lies with where that horrible excuse for a person works?
We have the biggest chronic disease epidemic in the entire world. Why should anyone care about those people who oversaw that chronic disease epidemic expanding dramatically and did nothing other than increase big pharma profits?
Just because there have been cuts doesn't mean there is zero research being funded by the federal government.Yeah. I'm sure that's what they keep telling you on Fox News.
Don't let facts get in the way. Research now is being funded by Corporations and Private Grants. How many private grants do you think there are?
So Corporations are the last thing left.
The peer review process has been corrupted as well.
Do you remember Francesca Gino? She was a tenured professor at Harvard Business School & she was known for her research on dishonesty and ethical behavior,. Her work was peer reviews and recently found to be fraudulent.
Oh look. The fake expert is back.
Someone who has to keep mentioning they are an expert obviously isn't an expert. Based on your posts and how you are unable to refute things specifically while you stick to vague statements I'll continue to laugh at your supposed expertise.
