Defensive Manoevers and Evasions : Drivel for the Unwary

You could use this as a model for any topic where rational discussion is made impossible and the 'conspiracy theorist' label is brandished with abandon and glee. While 'climate science' immediately comes to mind, there is room for a list of topics that have politically correct mandates every bit as insidious as 'Holocaust Denial' ( as if a fellow who has never been to Germany and was not born at the time events relating to the topic occurred would 'deny' anything - but that is a far cry from unconditionally believing chronic liars. That requires Faith : and I experience a shortage of applicants qualified for putting on a pedestal. ) Worse, the usual practice involves accusing others of exactly what is being done by 'respectable' persons...so what should one first suspect when experiencing chronic excuses enabled by Projection?  I expect accusers are 'emboldened' by it as a means to cover their tracks...and an excellent example of bullshit labelling.  

Straight Poop on Cod Liver Oil Dosage (Ready to Be Confused?)

Pete

September 4, 2015

I don’t know enough about the science to make a decision either way. And IF Sally’s Q&A is accurate, even the scientists in the know are in disagreement on some of these issues.

But I CAN tell A LOT by how different parties handle themselves. And here is what I am seeing from WAPF/GP:

Attack the messenger and ignore message.
Shifting stories
Rely on ones personal anecdote to dismiss others experiences
Deceptive arguments
smoke & mirrors
Ridiculous arguments counter to law and fact
Conspiracy theories
Conflicts of interest
Operating on blind faith
Arguing various logical facilities such as straw men arguments, red herrings, appeals to authority/personality, false dilemma, and more
Personal attacks and retribution
Complete lack of empathy
Lack of transparency
In every case to blame the patient rather than the product
dismiss, dismiss, dismiss
and more

It may well turn out that GP is completely innocent and FCLO is the best thing since sliced bread; it won’t matter. How this situation has been handled by WAPF/GP has broken my trust in them. They act as a guilty party would act. And that really saddens me.

This piece revisits an old interest from Care 2. August 2009 at Opit's LinkFest! I explored posts from two Care2 members that were blogged offsite - but found through submission to Care2 news

The Canadian Campaign to Legally Strangle Michael Schmidt and Montana Jones

 By David Gumpert on August 4, 2015 at 11:06 am | Comments 23 | Affiliate Disclosure 

Montana Jones and Michael Schmidt

The Canadian Shropshire sheep case against Michael Schmidt and Montana Jones–ongoing in one form or another for the last five years–has had more weird twists and turns than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 11-year campaign against raw milk cheese. Except the Canadian campaign against Michael Schmidt and Montana Jones seems designed to not only deplete the farmers’ legal funds, but to get them jailed for many years. The farmers have launched afund-raising campaign on Indiegogo, and Karen Selick, the litigation director of the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, wrote the explanation for the campaign

Sewerage sludge was a current concern in '09, as was spreading radioactive toxic coal ash from exhaust scrubbers at electrical generating plants...often found near waterways...on food crops. !

Watch Out: FDA Campaign Against Raw Milk Cheese Moving Into Super-Opaque Mode