More on the Plandemic Video: Rebutting the Plandemic Rebbutters. And Disagreeing with a Dear Friend. « Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

More on the Plandemic Video: Rebutting the Plandemic Rebbutters. And Disagreeing with a Dear Friend.

What’s Up?

Saturday dawned still and foggy so I started out photographing Coral Honeysuckle blossoms in our butterfly garden. I went down to the lake and did see some interesting behavior. And adult crane was sleeping, and I mean sleeping like a log. On my way back to the pier I noticed that he was lying on the ground sleeping, surrounded by three very interested Black Vultures. One of the vultures picked at the crane’s tail feathers as thee others closed in. The crane stood up and pecked at them and they flew off. I was ready for pix but there was always one vultures between me and the action.

For the past few days, we’ve had a male Rose-breasted Grosbeak at our backyard feeder, and yesterday there were two. It is the first time I have seen this species at ILE. The forecast for today — Sunday 10 MAY 2020 — is cloudy with drizzle and rain. It might be a good day for wildflower photography if it is not blowing.

Back to business as usual …


YouTube removed the Plandemic video again yesterday. You should always be able to see it here. Read more on the veracity of Dr. Minkovits below. I clicked on the Learn more link and read every word of it. Nothing there applied at all to the Pandemic video.

Disagreeing with a Dear Friend

In the Whatever Happened to Free Speech blog post here, my longtime and dear friend Patrick Sparkman, co-creator of the new SONY e-Guide, posted this:

Facebook and YouTube are private companies and have their own first amendment rights. The First Amendment applies to the government restriction of speech. Facebook and YouTube have the same rights as you do to censor content that they feel is not appropriate. How many times have you blocked a user here on your blog for content that you deemed not appropriate? Facebook and YouTube have the same rights as you.

The discussion in the comments section of that blog post has been heated but civil.

In any case, Patrick’s response did not quite make complete sense to me and I mentioned it to Dr. Cliff Oliver, another longtime friend, a friend who inspired me to quit trying to kill myself with food about 25 years ago and has guided me along my path ever since then. I hold him in high regard as a brilliant doctor. Via text message, he mentioned people were upset as Congress had given some special exemptions to the big public forums. So I did some online research to learn about these exemptions.

I found a relevant article on the CJ (City Journal) website. It is titled Platform, or Publisher? with this subhead: If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they need to get out of the censorship business. It was co-authored by Adam Candeub, a law professor & director of the Intellectual Property, Information & Communications Law Program at Michigan State University who previously served as an attorney at the Federal Communications Commission and by Mark Epstein, an antitrust attorney specializing in the technology sector.

Below is what was published on May 7, 2018. You can read the article with several live links here.

When the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on social media censorship late last month, liberal Democratic congressman Ted Lieu transformed into a hardcore libertarian. “This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing,” he said, because “the First Amendment applies to the government, not private companies.” He added that just as the government cannot tell Fox News what content to air, “we can’t tell Facebook what content to filter,” because that would be unconstitutional.

Lieu is incorrect. While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

When questioning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month, and in a subsequent op-ed, Cruz reasoned that “in order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook should be ‘neutral public forums.’ On the flip side, they should be considered to be a ‘publisher or speaker’ of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoken.” Tech-advocacy organizations and academics cried foul. University of Maryland law professor Danielle Citron argued that Cruz “flips [the] reasoning” of the law by demanding neutral forums. Elliot Harmon of the Electronic Freedom Foundation responded that “one of the reasons why Congress first passed Section 230 was to enable online platforms to engage in good-faith community moderation without fear of taking on undue liability for their users’ posts.”
As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.
The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to “provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects.” But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle. For instance, in response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher.” In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its “First Amendment protection for a publisher’s editorial judgments,” which “encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content.”
The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.

Rebutting the Plandemic Rebbutters

As noted above, YouTube continues to take down the Plandemic video, yet they allow the rebuttals to stand and they continue to promote them. A respected doctor in San Diego posted a factual rebuttal to the rebuttals (with lots of links). It is reproduced below.

Ladd McNamara, M.D.

Ladd McNamara, M.D. is an author, educator, and international speaker, with a passion for health, truth, justice, and freedom. To have lasting happiness and health, one must have freedom to pursue truth in all areas, including the principles of wellness. He has made it his life’s work to first understand, and then educate others on nontoxic healthful modalities that support optimal health, including advanced nutritional supplementation and lifestyle modification. He also feels the duty to inform others of the risks and dangers of certain medications, toxic chemicals in our food and water, and unhealthful lifestyles.

Learn more about Ladd on his website here.

For Those Who Doubt the Plandemic Movie

From Ladd McNamara’s Facebook Page

I researched some of the “facts” going around claiming to have “debunked” the movie, which are being regurgitated by many who prefer to remain asleep and won’t put the effort in to research things themselves. Here is what I found along with all of my supporting sources.

1. Dr. Anthony Fauci has worked at the National Institute of Health (NIH) since 1968 and has been a Director with the organization since 1984, “both as a scientist and as the head of the NIAID at the NIH”. A simple Wikipedia search resolved that one.

2. The NIH was one of the institutions funding the original study published in 10/23/2009, which Dr. Mikovits participated in and makes reference to in the Plandemic movie. Dr. Fauci worked at and continues to work at the NIH, one of the primary financial contributors to the study as one of it’s most senior directors, so you can indeed say that Dr. Judy Mikovits was in fact working for Dr. Fauci. I have downloaded the complete original study and saved for you to access here (highlights on page 3 denote Dr. Judy Mikovits’s participation and her employing firm) (highlights on page 6 indicate the institutions which provided the funding for the study):

Click here.

3. The study was challenged in 2010, when other researches could not replicate their findings and in September 2010, the original team, inclusive of Dr. Judy Mikovits issued an official response supporting their work.

Click here.

4. After which the original study was partially and then subsequently fully retracted (a very rare move in science). The partial retraction document states that two of the co-authors, Robert Silverman and Das Gupta (whom the original study listed as working for the Department of Cancer Biology) re-analyzed the samples they used and discovered that they had been contaminated. Please refer back to the first link provided herein, for item #1 showing the original study, indicates on the document that it has since been retracted.

5. That she was arrested and a quote from the prosecuting district attorney, that said the charges were dropped because “there were issues with the witnesses”.

Click here.

6. In September 2012, Dr. Judy Mikovits and a team of other scientists conducted another study replicating the original one and published their findings, ultimately resolving the scientific communities dispute over the original work.

And click here.

Or here:

7. As previously shared in another post, Dr. Fauci does in fact hold a large number of patents related to HIV (as Dr. Judy Mikovits states in the video). He also holds numerous patents related to the Novel Coronavirus.

Other Interesting and Related Facts:

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has appointed Dr. Anthony Fauci to their Vaccination Action Plan.

Click here.

Bill Gates personally owns a number of vaccine-related patents (amongst many other interesting and unrelated patents):

Pirbright, a company funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation owns European protecting replication of a variant gene of an avian infectious bronchitis virus.

European Patent# 3 172 319 B1

Here is proof that Pirbright is in fact funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

Click here.

Pirbright also has a US patent on the Coronavirus (you will need to scroll down quite a bit to see the owner and inventor they really covered every base on this patent.

Click here.

Vanderbilt University owns a large number of Coronavirus vaccine patents:

Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Director of Vanderbilt University go back.

Here you see them lobbying together:

Also as previously shared in another post, the polio vaccines the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation tested on children in Africa, causing an outbreak of Polio from the vaccine itself and paralysis on the children.

Click here.

30 comments to More on the Plandemic Video: Rebutting the Plandemic Rebbutters. And Disagreeing with a Dear Friend.

  • avatar Jeff Walters

    The pharmaceutical Co. seem to be controlling medicine(training for medical schools and their textbooks), medical training, most facets of our government(lobbyist and donations), the FDA and EPA. To put it mildly we are hosed. Probably way past the tipping point of turning things around. Corporate lobbying should be illegal, or we should just call it bribery. I’m glad to learn more about photography from you Artie and I’m not offended one iota to have information presented that may question the current status quo on the pandemic. In the movie Red October the politician states that when he’s not kissing babies he’s stealing their lollipops. I’m a patriot, I have pride in my country. But, I know that in some ways I can’t trust my Govt as far as I can throw it. I watch Fox News, I like Tucker Carlson, I don’t believe all he says. I certainly don’t believe all CNN, NBC, etc. The media has been taken over by the liberals, trained up in our liberal colleges and hellbent on promoting their ideals even if it means lying or bending the hell out of the truth. Thanks for expanding our minds Artie.

  • avatar Mark Fines

    WoW, I thought I was tuning into a bird photography website only to find a load of unscientific discredited claptrap. Trumpian propaganda at it’s finest. You’ll be telling me it was all Obamas fault next. I just put your site in my trash folder. I will not be visiting again.

  • avatar Jay Abrams

    I photograph birds as a hobby and have learned much from your blog over the years. So, it is disheartening toes that you hold such fringe discredited views and have chosen to spread them through a forum dedicated to bird photography. I make it my practice to ignore those who spread vicious anti-science conspiracy theories. And this means you. I am unsubscribing.

  • avatar David Kettles

    I must admit, I am a little confused. An embittered ex scientist, who published garbage linking a mouse virus to CFS, and had the paper withdrawn (samples were contaminated), also was involved in garbage around autism and vaccines – another ‘scientific’ paper that had to be withdrawn incidentally – not her work however. Now a video that amongst other things claims that wearing a mask ‘activates your own coronavirus’ ?? And the beaches should be open because something in the sand is going to make you stronger against Covid….? Her credibility is in tatters just from this..
    I watched Netflix documentary on flat earthers the other night. They also made some interesting points.
    May I humbly suggest Artie, that like it or not, this discussion on your blog is not doing you any favours. Its a bit like a Trump briefing where he discusses bleach and hot air…..I cannot recommend you add this to your blog.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      I agree in part. Please be sure to see tomorrow’s blog post. That said, I have never taken a flu shot and would choose jail as a better option than taking a COVID-19 vaccination.

      with love, artie

      ps: you need to do some fact-checking yourself.

  • To address the the question of “How does this relate to ‘Birds as Art’.” First, Birds as Art tours are closed down, along with many small businesses. Second, people are being arrested in many places for going outside without permission–think having a camera will protect you from being wrestled to the ground? Third, even assuming things return a bit to normal (and that’s conjectural, because Gates is promising a second wave, and God knows they’ve got far worse toxins available), who’s to say nature photography or photo tours will ever be deemed “essential”? Only Walmart and Amazon are essential! What’s happening, and what’s been planned for a long time, is a worldwide corporate state (i.e. fascism) ruled by a tiny technological elite (a fraction of the 1%), a system like China’s and today’s equivalent of monarchy. To paraphrase George Carlin, it’s a small club and we ain’t in it.

    Moreover, whether you think of yourself as liberal or conservative, you aren’t likely to find the new order, the “Gates plan,” attractive. Remember when liberals (and libertarians) argued a woman’s right to choose? How about the right to travel without an implanted chip and government permission? Or the right to refuse DNA-modifying vaccine with unknown side-effects that might well include neurological damage and sterility?–to help the planet, of course, though the elites won’t be taking the same vaccines and will have as many children as they like. Remember Jeffrey Epstein’s New Mexico ranch where he was planning a breeding program for himself, and maybe others? The Daily Beast writes: “Bill Gates Praised Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s Lifestyle: ‘Kind of Intriguing’”.

    Gates dealings with Epstein may be speculative, but for excellent, well documented information, see The Corbett Report, “How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health” and “Bill Gate’s Plan to Vaccinate the World.” A third video in the series is said to be coming.

    There are years when things change more than they have in a century. 2020 is looking like one of those, and it threatens far more than our photography.

    • avatar Anthony Ardito

      I kind of agree, but not in the same vein.

      First of all Gates is possibly…..I won’t say it (because he’s looking ;)). Well, I hate windows, but apple has no candle to hold to the windows platform of pure cpu/gpu power…not even close. Photography?, Apple is fantastic! But the tough computations are left to the microsoft machines.

      Second, I don’t think corporations are “fascist”. Corporations are a group of working people. They are not looking to take over your life, but only looking to provide you, the consumer, excellent products and services to make a profit. Why does everyone have an iphone, macbook? People like it and will pay for it.

      Third, I like George Carlin. I have a Carlin book, yes paper, from the early 80’s that says this…Moon fuck…I figure fuck the moon! This is closest I can find on youtube Artie sorry, if too much, delete my post.

      Don’t be a follower, think for yourself 😉

  • How does this discussion relate to “Birds as Art?”

  • avatar Hank Levesque

    So long Artie. When you mentioned Tucker Carlson was a source of valid questions, I shuddered to think that you were being deluded by the state news channel. Now that you’ve joined the latest conspiracy theory, I’ve had enough. Funny, but the old saying “familiarity breeds contempt” was never so true. I was better of not knowing that you sided with a racist, biased, non-empathetic administration who’s sole function is to promote division in this country in order to maintain power.

    For someone so protective of the environment your photography relies upon, it’s very disappointing to hear your support of those individuals that are attacking our planet’s ability to support our very existence. I thought you were better than that.

    I won’t be returning, but then you’ll just brush it off, or maybe consider it part of yet another phony conspiracy.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      Bye Hank. I wish you the best. I never stated that I was supporting anyone. I did say that Tucker Carlson was asking lots of very good questions. I do hope that the Democrats can come up with a viable presidential candidate.

      with love, artie

      • avatar Hank Levesque

        Can’t let that go unanswered – the Democrats have come up with someone that has presidential qualities, which will be a refreshing change from what we have now.

        It’s a shame your blog has turned into this, but then again, you introduced it. Not your viewers.

        with love, Hank

        • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

          Have you noticed that Biden is unable to complete a sentence?

          with love, artie

          ps: was it you who said, “I won’t be returning”?

          • avatar Hank Levesque

            Hey Artie, at least Biden doesn’t make up words (covfefe, infantroopen, hamburders, chanded, United Shates, …). And I’ve seen a number of your videos – of all people, you shouldn’t be the one to mock someone for the way they speak or have brain cramps. Denise Ippolito saved you a number of times, but we all just understood that maybe you had lost your fastball (or jumpshot). It was acceptable then, but not now when you turn around and mock Biden for similar issues.

            As far as returning, it was just as I suspected. Yeah, I came back just to see if Artie was firing at someone’s back as they walked away. Yup – you did.

            with love (as always), Hank

            P.S. Go ahead now and have your last word.

            Thanks, Hank. You are seriously hilarious. First, you show up trashing me for “siding with a racist, biased, non-empathetic administration” when I did no such thing. And then, after stating that you will never come to the blog again (for free lessons on bird and nature photography), you show up to promote your own political views. I was not mocking Biden, I was stating a fact. And yes, my brain ain’t what it used to be but I am not running for president.

            I’d suggest that you take a remedial reading course 🙂

            with love, artie

            ps: you are done here so don’t bother wasting any additional keystrokes

  • avatar Adam

    Hi Artie, without definitive SCOTUS clarification, Patrick’s assertions are more or less correct. Private companies can place a myriad of restrictions on their employees from dress, to speech, and other forms of conduct. Unfortunately, the overlap between governmental regulation, Constitutional protections, and private enterprise is murky with internet regulations being even more complex. While users of FB and other platforms are not employees, by signing user agreements, they are entering into contracts with these companies and are subject to the provisions therein.

    Murky, indeed. For me, the key words above are more or less and definitive.

    More importantly, the governors across the country are invoking Marshall Law restrictions without any prescribed authority, directly contravening many Bill of Rights protections. They have effectively suspended the Constitution …

    Agree 100%.

    leaving the average citizen little recourse. Currently, they represent a more tangible threat than Knucklehead and the other internet masters. Good luck suing the states as it will cost you enormous sums of money, take months to adjudicate, and in the end, these criminals are protected by sovereign immunity.

    Back to the internet masters, none of the legislators have the courage to take these people on. The government has cause under the commerce clause and can easily attack these companies using the Sherman Act, though it is extremely unlikely. These companies have bought off the legislators the same way the Chinese bought our industries by spreading some money around. Whether your political leanings are closer to a Bernie Bro or a Trumpster, is less relevant than what is happening to the foundational freedoms of this country.

    Agree with thanks and love. artie

  • avatar Monte Brown

    Artie, thanks for sharing the post. Can’t understand why a video questioning the actions of those in powers of position in the government creates such vitriol, it does seem like censorship on the part of Facebook to remove the video. Have been on many IPT’s and always found that you possess a good amount of common sense, unfortunately it’s becoming an uncommon trait. Our inability to view the world through anything other than a political lens often taints the image we see.
    Our daughter nearly died when she was 3 years old from a severe reaction to a flu vaccine, so I know from experience vaccines can be extremely dangerous. My father was an orthopedic surgeon and our community was hit with a deadly polio epidemic shortly after he completed his medical training. Dad was a strong supporter of the American Medical Association for many years but by the time he retired he described the AMA and other similar medical organizations as nothing more than lobbying groups beholden to the whims of Washington bureaucrats.

    Thought it ironic that you posted an article on free speech on the 75th Anniversary of VE Day, if our parents and grandparents had not persevered, there would be no free speech.

  • avatar Bill Webb

    I am dismayed that this formerly enjoyable bird blog post and advice site has descended to Facebook levels of political animus and discord. I will check back in a few weeks to see if it has recovered.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      Dismay is a choice. Have fun while you are away. You’ll be missing three great Cattle Egret flight images in tomorrow’s blog post.

      With love, artie

      • avatar Anthony Sakal

        So often, while listening to a client’s viewpoint, I have to put business on the back burner and express my point of view. It is always an arguably one based on, facts, evidence and logic. Now, I’m fortunate, in a way, because people have to use me if they want the best but sometimes I wish they didn’t; sometimes all the proof and sound reasoning in the world will never change an opinion no matter how unsupported it may be and the effort applied, trying, can be exhaustive. Sometimes we know too much. When is too much? When we worry that the controlling powers are ignoring what appears to be obvious and there is nothing we can do about it. If we were less informed we might enjoy the time period, we are not going to change anyway, minus the worry. On the other hand I’ve also been responsible for changing an awful lot of minds despite it not having been an easy task. If enough of us say something, if enough of us speak out, maybe we can take the ball back into our own court and determine, by free choice, the paths we wish to take to pursue happiness, untethered from the authoritative Masters of the Universe.

  • avatar Ron Sprunger

    I watched the movie, and followed the links (some could not be followed). I’m certainly not experienced or expert in patent law and terminology, but I didn’t see one instance of a patent “owned” by Dr. Fauci. He was listed as one of the inventors, but the patents were all assigned to the government entities which (presumably) funded the research. This seems very much like an overblown conspiracy theory, though it would take a much more thorough and undirected investigation (or prior acquaintance with the actors and facts) to confirm or debunk. The video doesn’t seem to me to ring completely true, and is definitely not an unbiased, scientifically reviewed, presentation of fact.

  • Arthur, thanks for publicizing the Plandemic video and condemning the censorship. There’s so much evidence of establishment malfeasance that it’s hard to know where to start, but it’s mainstream news that Fauci awarded contracts to the Wuhan Lab to find and then enhance dangerous bat viruses, that Wuhan (and surely other labs, since most major nations do bioweapons research) did work on chimera viruses, and that U.S., Canadian, and Australian scientists have collaborated with Wuhan in these efforts. Among others, the discoverer of the HIV virus says there are HIV proteins in the sars-cov2 virus. Those interested might search for interviews with Dr. Francis Boyle (author of the Biological Weapons Convention) or the “Latest Articles” at Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense website covering, among other things, the poor record of Bill Gates’ sponsored vaccine programs in third world countries. Some of the vaccines Gates is pushing now, never previously approved, are a new type that permanently modifies the recipients’ DNA. (Don’t be put off by Kennedy’s leftist politics–his stuff on Gates and vaccines is first rate and well documented. The evil Gates, not a doctor or even a college graduate, giggles and smirks as he claims there’s no return to life without injecting the whole world with one of his rushed, unproven “novel” vaccines.)

    Great eagle images you posted from your recent Homer trip!

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      Thanks, Cliff. Talk about a blast from the past. Cliff Beittel came on many IPTs a zillion years ago and had many hundreds (if not thousands) of his excellent bird photographs published. with love, artie

    • avatar Anthony Sakal

      Had established, or should I say political, protocol, not been followed in NYC a lot more people would be alive today. It appears that an awful lot of people, who died, did so in nursing homes. We lost the Greatest Generation, the Boomers, en masse. All the emphasis was placed, not on nursing homes but on everywhere else, such as outside gatherings, while, simultaneously, state government actually exposed, forcibly, the most vulnerable, in nursing homes, to the virus in a setting where they could not escape. We didn’t err on the side of caution; we erred on the side of obliteration. A targeted strategy, instead of one size fits all, might have protected the economy and saved a lot of lives as well. This was absolutely horrible; so much of it was government choreographed and orchestrated using the power of edict and force. You will find none of this info on YouTube. That should make you aware that YouTube wants to determine what you hear and see provided it does not contradict their, yet to be admitted to, bias. For different viewpoints you need to look elsewhere.

  • avatar Richard Currie

    My opinion is that this is a bitter, vindictive and deluded woman and that youtube properly blocked the video.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      I agree that there is at least one very bitter person around here …

      with love, artie

    • avatar Anthony Sakal

      She appears bitter to me as well. Maybe she feels that she can’t get the truth out. That can make you bitter. YouTube has no problem with overt liars. Personally I think such soft bigotry has nothing to do with their motives. I think she is on the wrong side of their political bias.

  • avatar Kathy Kunce

    watched the movie – now I don’t truly know what to think.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      I agree. That said, do read Cliff Beittel’s insightful comment above. There surely is something fishy in Denmark …

      with love, artie

  • avatar David Policansky

    As a scientist who has received federal funds in support of my research, I do agree with Dr. Mikovits that any patent arising from taxpayer supported should be owned by the taxpayers, or better, be in the public domain. She is correct that it is a conflict of interest for a public servant to hold a patent in her or his area if public responsibility.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>