Friday, February 7, 2014

The coward who could save billions of lives

Sometimes a brave man comes forward and saves lives, often giving his won life for the sake of others. Sadly it's more common for people to sit in their tiny hole, cowardly protecting themselves for fear of being persecuted for telling the truth.

Then there are the truly reprehensible people, the ones who make an empty, useless gesture to assuage their conscience even though it accomplishes noting to actually save anyone. It's that kind of reprehensible coward I'm writing about today.

One of the clearing houses for vaccine information is One one of that site's pages there's an interview with a former vaccine researcher. That man comes clean about the dangers and lies surrounding vaccines, blowing the lid off the conspiracies and money grubbing that has lead to billions being injected with poison.

The problem is the man, the researcher remains anonymous. He doesn't even reveal which vaccines he worked on for fear of being identified. He gives some lame excuses for his secrecy on the web site, but let's be honest, if I were in a position to save BILLIONS of lives, even if it were to cost me my own life, I'd do it. Standing up to evil requires courage and faith, but this researcher has neither.

He never reveals any proof of his or her claims or gives any reason why we should believe them. The fear of being persecuted is cowardly, especially since this person is claiming vaccines are part of a plan to kill over 3 billion people.

Aside from the fact that this unknown voice is saying things we agree with, what proof do we have of their honesty? I ask this because the major hurdle I encounter in arguing against vaccination is that people are more inclined to trust a man in a lab coat than an anonymous interviewee on a web site.

Does anyone have additional information on this researcher? Is there a way of verifying his story? I'd hoped for someone who had come out who could prove they had worked on specific vaccines, but this person is letting the fear of FBI and IRS harassment keep him from really stepping forward in a case that could save the lives of 3 Billion people! If this coward really came forward he could save lives. Is there a way to drag him into the light?

By refusing to come forward, he allows his critics to continue ignoring him. He severely limits the number of people who will believe him. As it is he's only reinforcing the beliefs of the people who already know the truth about vaccines. No one will be swayed by such an unknown and unverified source! All he's doing is preaching to the choir.

His fear is rank cowardice. He values his own life more than the lives of half the planet. The hubris and arrogance that lead him to become a vaccine researcher has not left him.

He could be saving millions, perhaps BILLIONS of lives. Instead he's hiding under a rock like an insect. He may have "come forward" but he hasn't atoned for what he's done. His interview is an empty gesture, useless for teaching people the truth.

He's an accomplice to genocide, and by continuing to hide he's remaining an accomplice. The blood of millions is upon his hands.


Geek Goddess said...

What is more likely, that a person has discovered a way to save billions of lives, and is being persecuted by Men in Black Suits, or that a lone crank is claiming to have found the science to do so (or discovered cold fusion, or invented a perpetual motion machine).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Anonymous said...

First time reader. I'm confused by this interview, and what it contains.
And also by your comments in regards to it. From what I can tell, you are implying that we should believe that the person being interviewed is telling the truth.
You then go on to say that we should chastise him for not coming forward with actual evidence, or any proof.
I he has not seen fit to provide evidence, why should we believe him?
Could he not be, as the previous commenter has noted, simply a 'lone crank'?
I find it hard to believe that someone with such passion against the system that they were a part of (as indicated in the language of the man's interview, and his statements therein) would be cowed simply by losing his pension, and a little 'harassment'.
In this case, I will have to wait until there is some kind of evidence of what this man claims, as opposed to the somewhat nonsensical ramblings of the interview.

Alexander Cornswalled said...


The arguments made by the cowardly vaccine researcher mesh with other research I've done into vaccines and the people who make them. The tale weaves seamlessly into what I already know to be true.

Imagine for a moment that you're a Holocaust enthusiast. You have an understanding of events that, while not scholarly, are well beyond what most people know about that tragedy. You read a story from an unattributed source about one man's survival of the Holocaust. The story gets all the details right, and even though the unknown protagonist remains a cipher, his story matches research you've already done. You realize that it would have taken a considerable amount of research to write a fictional account that meshed with know facts so readily.

How much credence would you give that account?

Now imagine you're preparing for a debate against Holocaust deniers. The haunting story mentioned above is from a source who refused to divulge his name. It WOULD be a powerful argument, a striking account that may very well sway some people, but because there's no name attached to it you can't use this remarkable document.

That's the frustration I feel now.

skepticalbully said...

The arguments made by the cowardly vaccine researcher mesh with other research I've done into vaccines and the people who make them.

I would offer this little fact: You're wrong. So is that person in the interview. Therefore, it's quite possible for your "research" to mesh together so well yet be completely off the mark.