Stuart Lowman’s Inbox: We don’t need “advice”, which is largely personal opinion, posing as fact

A vote of confidence from ‘a Cape reader’ who wishes to remain anonymous, who posted the following in response to BizNews publishing PANDA’s right of reply to an article published in GroundUp.

I am most grateful for your coverage of “the con of the millennium”, and especially for giving PANDA a local voice. The PANDA responds to Geffen’s hit-piece on PANDA and its co-founder, Nick Hudson article reminded me of the following observation in the foreword to Viktor E. Frankl’s book Yes to life.

Apologies for the arbitrary quotation and referencing system. Dyslexia rules – often enough to require robust “work-arounds” if accuracy is required. Hope you find this worth sharing.

And thanks for the unapologetic support of the ongoing battle for clarity and rational discussion.

The interview my colleague Nadya Swart did with doctor Herman Edeling was censored by YouTube. In response to the article which was published on BizNews.com, community member Marc had the following call to doctors:

  1. I would like a South African class-action criminal case to be laid against people who suppressed the use of life-saving alternative treatments (in the public and private spheres); and censored health practitioners trying to share this life-saving information; leading to the wrongful death of many thousands of South Africans. The guilty must not go unpunished.

  2. A Commission of Enquiry needs to be established to get to the bottom of this ungodly mess; with cases laid with the ICC. I do not care how long it takes; but there are international actors that deserve to be convicted and spend the rest of their lives in jail.

The response by community member Sarah to the Piet Mouton open letter generated varied feedback, Frank arguing that we don’t need advice, which purports to personal opinion:

I wish that high-profile South Africans who blindly follow and push the vaccination rhetoric, without having researched the sterling work done on the use and efficacy of alternatives, would stop making comments that purport to be in the interests of South African citizens, by publicly advocating an agenda that goes against the exercise of their constitutional right of free will, as to what is put into their bodies.

There are screeds of evidence of the success of alternative treatments, that are efficacious both as prophylactics and treatment of Covid, that have been identified and proven by such eminent scientists such as Dr Tess Lawrie, Prof Paul Marik, Dr Pierre Kori, Dr Bret Weinstein and many others, that have not only vociferously made information available regarding alternative treatments that are safer, widely available and absolutely affordable, and who also are critical of the blanket shutdown that has been instituted by the mass media and others, stifling open discussion and commentary.

One would have thought that these commentators would have informed themselves about these alternatives and the risks which are only now becoming apparent from the introduction of new technologies, where humans have in effect become research guinea pigs.

Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, a PHD DVM qualified independent virologist and vaccine expert, is extremely worried about the wholesale application of such new vaccines being widely applied during the course of a pandemic, such as Covid. His fear is the real risk that the action taken could encourage increasing  future mutations of the virus to a point where they become much more virulent and resistant.

Making recommendations without knowledge of what risks could be down the road, is potentially dangerous, especially when the long term effects of introducing new compounds are unknown and many experts in the field have acknowledged this fact.

We are in a situation of great uncertainty and the use of safe alternatives are being actively resisted, which is almost criminal, when at the very least they can be safely applied with no risk and achieve probable success.

We need more transparent and open public discussion with experts, leading to a more educated society, not only to make informed personal decisions about Covid, but as preparation for future infectious pandemics that are almost surely coming, following our tinkering with nature.

In the meantime care should be exercised in public and the alternative treatments available rolled out as widely as possible.

Lastly, we don’t need “advice”, which is largely personal opinion, posing as definitive fact to be published.

Wider exposure of alternatives to the public at large is absolutely necessary as alternative public interest information and the mass media has abrogated its responsibility to discuss alternative regimens. It would be advantageous if an online interview was set up with a panel of the above as a source of information which largely has been actively closed down by officialdom and the mass media.

To receive the Daily Insider every weekday at 6am in your inbox click here. You can also sign up to the weekend’s BizNews Digest for a wrap of the best content BizNews has to offer, for a leisurely Saturday read.

(Visited 651 times, 5 visits today)