Last week, we talked about the death of Dr. Jeffrey Bradstreet and its possible connection with other unusual deaths of doctors in the recent past. If you haven’t read the Part 1, just click the link above. It has, no doubt, inspired much skepticism.
That’s good. What’s not so good is how much of this skepticism comes from websites pretending to be unbiased publishers of fact… when they are anything but.
So in Part 2, before we dive into the criticisms of the theory we’re discussing, we must take a slight detour to reveal the dangers of Internet fact-finding in general. This might be very eye-opening for you.
Nate: Whenever there’s chatter on the Internet about a current event or controversy, people often cite Snopes when they seek to “debunk” something, or at least get the facts straight. But in your investigation, you’ve found this to be pure, pardon the term, bunk?
Edward: Yes, Snopes is often held up falsely as the line in the sand for truth discernment, without people realizing that all Barbara and David Mikkelson and their cohort of cats are really doing is using the Internet and a list of their “preferred” sources to often regurgitate establishment propaganda surrounding the trending topics of the day. A big example of this is a simple search of any doctor who has attempted to go to the press with information of maleficence.
One of the first examples of this type of political shilling that I personally noticed is the case of former John Hopkins University School of Medicine scientist Peter Doshi, who went on a mini-crusade in 2012 to expose the ineffectiveness of the yearly flu shot. Though the information he presented was powerful, compelling, and meticulously sourced, he was met with fierce pushback from the medical community for his statement that “The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.” (Peter Doshi’s paper: Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease)
He was eventually bullied out of the university — thankfully, not before he was able to convince me to forgo getting that little shot of placebo and ruin ever again after our correspondence back in 2013! Here is the Snopes article on the subject: The Flu Plot
As you can see, they are quick to point out that though Peter Doshi holds a Ph.D., he’s not a virologist or an epidemiologist, but rather an anthropologist who studies comparative effectiveness research. They go on further to highlight that he never conducted influenza research at Hopkins and his article was really an opinion piece that did not report any new findings, not to be misconstrued with original research. In Snopes logic, you are not fit to criticize baseball bats unless you are a Babe Ruth himself!
Obviously, by reviewing a resume of Peter Doshi’s work, one can see he is an incredibly reputable academic source, regardless of his specific degree field. He was simply trying to shed light on a subject he felt was being misrepresented. This is usually enough to end a scientist’s career, but lucky for Peter Doshi, he survived the Snopes guillotine and is now an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the School of Pharmacy at the University of Maryland as well as an associate editor at editor at The BMJ. But many don’t fare as well!
Nate: It’s incredible how well-meaning scientists are castigated for doing important investigative work. Spy Briefing Today’s Chris Campbell published an article on flu shots that very much relates to this. It reveals how the fraud surrounding Tamiflu, an anti-flu drug, reaches all the way up to the FDA itself.
Wikipedia is another example. It represents itself as an unbiased, collaboratively created encyclopedia, but you and I have both found its content can be so slanted you just have to laugh at it. The part that’s not so funny is how they’re in bed with Google to control what people “learn” online.
Edward: Wikipedia’s stated stance of neutrality is a joke. They’re about as neutral as Communist China in their discrete censorship activities and underlying liberal biases. It’s really essentially used as a bullying platform. An example of this slant is how Wikipedia page entries that deal with “alternative” medicine, chiropractic, and other topics are routinely vandalized and used to deceive and misinform rather than impart unbiased knowledge.
Wikipedia editors who hold unpopular views on other sensitive subjects, such as 9/11 truth and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, for instance, are also routinely bullied and even banned from the site. One man by the name of Rome Viharo tells his story about being bullied by Wikipedia in a report published at Sott.net, explaining that “Harassment and bullying may be a disruptive annoyance on Facebook or discussion forums, but in an online collaborative environment its [sic] poisonous to consensus building,” wrote Viharo, noting how his unpopular editorial contributions to Wikipedia resulted in his malicious branding as a “‘fringe’ promoter, a conspiracy theorist, a charlatan for ‘pseudoscience’… and a well known internet troll with an anti-social personality disorder [sic].”
In addition to the endemic editorial bullying, the farce that they are representing unbiased, open-source truth is utterly shattered when you look at the Harvard “edit-a-thon” held on Labor Day this year. A group of undergraduates spent the day engaged in purging entries they deemed to be offensive related to leftist views of LGBTQ, feminism, and human rights issues, and even made the boisterous statement in their student-run feminist publication Manifesta magazine that they were single-handedly doing their part to “dismantle the patriarchy” in Wikipedia.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’ll use it from time to time to get basic information about places and people, but the information and opinions are by no means to be taken as the zeitgeist!
Nate: OK, I think we can all agree that these various supposed bastions of neutrality are, in fact, cesspools of slant. But that still doesn’t mean their criticisms are always wrong.
So let’s return to what they say about this unusual string of deaths. One of the main criticisms of there being a connection between these deaths is that murders and suicides happen all the time and, statistically speaking, nothing unusual is happening here. Could you comment on that?
Edward: I hear that criticism, and honestly I respect it. It’s pivotal as an investigative journalist to be objective and fact driven. Do doctors die every day? Sure. Actually, the median age of death for most doctors is roughly 61 now, due to the fast-paced nature of their job and the fact that many, ironically, don’t take proper care of themselves. But they often die from natural causes. I know our generation raised on Netflix has their normalcy meters set to new thresholds, but it’s not every day that a doctor is beaten to death with a ball-peen hammer or is found belly down in a river with the seven-pound murder weapon one mile downstream. One of these was undoubtedly a murder. The other is still being investigated but has some obvious unanswered questions.
Nate: Another criticism is that the doctors you mentioned vary widely in their fields of practice and seem to have no connection other than dying within a few weeks of each other. That, and they didn’t seem prominent enough to inspire such extreme actions. Could you describe why you think these things aren’t true?
Edward: Honestly, I think some of the doctors who are being portrayed and grouped with this theory of a systematic conspiratorial assassination plot are being falsely associated. Out of the ones that truly have evidence to justify the assertions of foul play, many were indeed from different fields, but they dealt with the same market of patients: those with chronic incurable illnesses that allopathic Western medicine could not assist and that pharmaceutical companies often make millions off of in regard to expensive health management protocols. I think one blatant similarity is the fact that many were successfully offering alternatives to conventional oncological cancer treatment (chemotherapy and associated medication), some in the form of holistic herbal protocols, others with ozone therapy or GcMAF supplementation, which I mentioned in last week’s story.
On this very poignant subject, there is actually a documentary coming out later this month from a friend of my mine named Ty Bollinger, with many of these scientists and cancer treatment protocols being directly highlighted. I highly recommend this free series for any of those interested in looking into what these doctors really had in common
Nate: OK, we’re out of time for today, and quite frankly… this is a lot to digest. But fear not, because we’re not done yet. Stay tuned for Part 3.
Regards,
Nate Rifkin
Underground Health Researcher
