Re: This is REALLY whats going on!!!!!!!!!!!

.....................Anecdotal Evidence

Isn't it funny how the newspapers aren't screaming that their observations on the sad reasons for the child's death is really anecdotal evidence? After all when one person recovers from a chronic disease, like cancer, the newspapers quickly call that anecdotal evidence if that person used alternative methods, and say that it doesn't prove anything (even with X-rays of before and after cancer).

If any news releases said the death was anecdotal, they are being drowned out by all those trying to make the death a scientific proof for their theory, the existence of HIV and to justify its costly therapy.

Somehow the word "anecdotal" is only applied to recoveries (of health) using alternative methods. But when the death of one person can be made to make their HIV theory (or any theory) look good, then one person is not considered anecdotal evidence any longer. It has scientific validity and therefore can be acted on to bring out the official state representatives like police or child welfare to tease out more favorable information toward their theory, or to punish (the parents). This behavior is not honest.

But then haven't most people forgotten the importance of having a basic high school Science course? Otherwise state officials would not be out there enforcing their rules for the majority. They want to imply--don't they--they can change the definition of anecdotal to however it will suit their purposes.

For instance, your evidence, based on one person, is anecdotal and therefore not worth anything . But my evidence, based on one person, is scientifically valid enough to be acted on by the authorities in the name of the state. The powers-that-be would like you to believe the latter, whenever they have something anecdotal.

Investigating HIV makes HIV theory more valid because of its connection with STATE AUTHORITIES. This is far, far away from crossing any scientific finsh line or test. It also gets people who don't use their common sense to learn to accept anecdotes the same as they would accept the results of a scientific test--but only if anecdotes favor the powers-that-be.

Not only are definitions and standards applied unequally, but formerly competent people are declared incompetent in the process. Parents who are competent, in important and unimportant positions, see their competence roll down the hill like a ton of loose bricks. If they don't want vaccinations for a child or a particular medicine, suddenly they are incompetent and can't take care of the child so the State has to take over the parent role to give the medication. Whereas, days before, they weren't incompetent. The parents are told by the State they are competent to decide if their daugther should have an abortion, but not a vaccination or what medicine she should take. If a person's only argument is that he is following authority, then he won't see any contradiction in this current situation.






Tweet