What if the “vaccine” is actually intended to infect people?

Is that “Tin Foil Hat” material?

Current Drudge Headline:

Swine flu shot link to killer nerve disease;
Concern over 25 deaths…

That having been said, there is a history of Nobel scientists going off the rails. Philipp von Lenard (physics) and Johannes Stark (physics) were both card-carrying Nazis

Stark was indeed a great physicist. The Stark effect is a fundamental early confirmation of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, being a great scientist doesn’t make you a good person. Even Isaac Newton was a jerk (though not a Nazi).

I don’t know about Lenard. Is he the Lenard of “Lenard Jones potentials”?

they are not experts in climate science.

Riiight.
Because AlGore is.

Receiving a Nobel prize is also not a very good indicator of science – it indicates good salesmanship.

So you are a better judge of science than the Nobel Prize committee. Right. Which of the recent science recipients (hint: this means physics, chemistry, biology, not peace or economics) do you think was undeserving?

Dimsdale said (#51):

How do you reconcile the fact that “Real actual well qualified expert scientists” (sic) are on both sides of the “climate change” argument?

There is exactly one real expert qualified scientist on the denial side of climate change, Professor Linzen of MIT. There are other good scientists who argue against global warming, but they are not experts in climate science.

On August 12th, 2009 at 2:07 pm, lgm said:

Holdren, who is Obama’s chief science adviser, chairs PCAST with Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and Eric Lander, director of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The full group boasts three Nobel laureates and 16 members of the national academies of science, engineering or medicine.

Real actual well qualified expert scientists. Sound the alarm!

How do you reconcile the fact that “Real actual well qualified expert scientists” (sic) are on both sides of the “climate change” argument? Is everyone’s position valid simply because they are a “real actual well qualified expert scientist” (sic)?

Then reconcile the fact that Al Gore is a “Nobel Laureate”, and got C- and D’s in the few science courses he took in college (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18).

Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. His theories are well known, advocating “quality of life” over “sanctity of life”, and author of the NYTimes article “Why we must ration health care” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html). Should he be an Obama adviser, since he is a “real actual well qualified expert scientist”?

Any hint of what Obama intends to do with NASA?

They will be given a new mission: building and maintaining a huge solar shield to maintain the earth temperature at a balmy 75 degrees all year round.

The pieces are in place,, the PEOPLE are in place, that seem to predict a lot. Zeke Emmanuel, John Holdren, Kathleen Sebelius….these are people with STRONG ties to eugenics and/abortion. John Holdren refers to The Challenge of Man’s Future in nearly every work he publishes. I would never want Dr Mengele to give me advice on healthcare, and I dont want this crew advising me on healthcare either. The thing is, it is worth knowing WHO will be calling the shots when it comes down to deciding who gets what care. Do you really want people who are avowed eugenicists having that power? Dr Tiller thrived under Kathleen Sebellius’ refusal to hold him accountable. Morality lost out bigtime. Who will close their eyes when Holder and Emmanuel start making pronouncements that are bad for our kids? Why is it that Obama’s team is made up of such hardcore critics of DIFFERENCE? Maybe its a fluke, but my radar is going ballistic.

Holdren stands to be making some BIG decisions when it comes to science and HEALTH issues. What makes him tick? Where is his head? The man he credits with forming his life views and career choices was a self proclaimed eugenicist. Some of his writings:

Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs.

Such steps would undoubtedly contribute substantially to a slowing down of species deterioration. But it is clear that they would by no means be sufficient. A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates.

prioritize healthcare based on ABILITY. Clear as a bell, isn’t it? and we want the guy who thinks this idea is marvy to be advising our the President?

Does anyone think that it’s possible that they will try to force everyone to become vaccinated against swine flu?

Probably.

As for “real” scientists – I agree most of them must have the unborn, newly born, and elderly in the crosshairs or Obama wouldn’t embrace them so enthusiastically.

Yay for eugenics! The thing lgm forgets is that one day he’ll get old, get sick. And all those “real scientists” who chomp at the bit to turn him into fertilizer won’t seem so glorious then.