I too attempted to address this controversy. I discount a lot of Desmet's book, I simply don't like it much and yes he seems to at least eagerly avoid the very opbvious conspiratorieal behaviors that are evidently involved, and a lot of it is well documented. Breggin certainly went too far with his final ad hominem over a professional mi…
I too attempted to address this controversy. I discount a lot of Desmet's book, I simply don't like it much and yes he seems to at least eagerly avoid the very opbvious conspiratorieal behaviors that are evidently involved, and a lot of it is well documented. Breggin certainly went too far with his final ad hominem over a professional mistake Desmet may have made. Breggin's book will be evidence in court. Desmet will not, nobody would try to use his stuff as a defense given the level of evidence that we already know about. However, Desmet is helpful in exploring how society behaved. And again, the way people went along with the lockdowns and the vax is not exculpatory for those who perpetrated these abusive regimes, but it is an important issue in society and we need to come to grips with that. https://pharmageddon-and-phoenix.letterdrop.com/c/allopathic-autodaf
Went too far? Is it going too far to discuss Fauci's experiments on beagles? That's an ad hominem too. I think Desmet's "professional mistake" gives the public some insight about who he is and how to evaluate his work. The text is not to be quarantined.
IMO, Desmet's professional mistake was a type of self-debunking. If someone is a narcissist and charlatan, I need to know that. Otherwise, we could read a study on digitalis at face value, not knowing or caring about the context, that the correct dose was determined by murdering prisoners in concentration camps.
OTOH, a text itself often contains its own markers for bad faith. But why not make it easier and include context and biographical details, to make it easier for people who aren't able to figure it out? Our lives are at stake. We aren't in freshman comp.
I too attempted to address this controversy. I discount a lot of Desmet's book, I simply don't like it much and yes he seems to at least eagerly avoid the very opbvious conspiratorieal behaviors that are evidently involved, and a lot of it is well documented. Breggin certainly went too far with his final ad hominem over a professional mistake Desmet may have made. Breggin's book will be evidence in court. Desmet will not, nobody would try to use his stuff as a defense given the level of evidence that we already know about. However, Desmet is helpful in exploring how society behaved. And again, the way people went along with the lockdowns and the vax is not exculpatory for those who perpetrated these abusive regimes, but it is an important issue in society and we need to come to grips with that. https://pharmageddon-and-phoenix.letterdrop.com/c/allopathic-autodaf
Went too far? Is it going too far to discuss Fauci's experiments on beagles? That's an ad hominem too. I think Desmet's "professional mistake" gives the public some insight about who he is and how to evaluate his work. The text is not to be quarantined.
but, at the end of the day, there is only the text -and what we bring to it...;)
IMO, Desmet's professional mistake was a type of self-debunking. If someone is a narcissist and charlatan, I need to know that. Otherwise, we could read a study on digitalis at face value, not knowing or caring about the context, that the correct dose was determined by murdering prisoners in concentration camps.
OTOH, a text itself often contains its own markers for bad faith. But why not make it easier and include context and biographical details, to make it easier for people who aren't able to figure it out? Our lives are at stake. We aren't in freshman comp.
the "angel of mercy" thing is outrageous (and telling...)
as is the fake "heart" surgery story
Great article - thank you!