Nevets

The Big Tobacco suppression may qualify as a conspiracy. But does it qualify as a conspiracy theory? Prior to the exposure of Big Tobacco, was there a notable conspiracy theory which accused Big Tobacco of this?

Who says that intelligent designer implies a being? It could imply AI technology! Though, yes, it could also imply a being. But then which God are you referring to? Yahweh? Elohim? Allah? In the religious and non religious argument, there are more than one God involved. I feel that to use the term God would be limiting myself to a limited possibility.

I can use the term intelligent designer without believing in either an intelligent designer or disbelieving. Just like I can use the term Satan, without believing or disbelieving in this entity. We can use words available to us in the English dictionary without having any type of belief regarding them. I personally view abiogenesis and intelligent design to be equally impossible. But they are the only two options we have. Therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve, as what I believe is not important anyway.

I prefer intelligent designer because it emcompasses a larger surround. Nothing more to it than that.

You might actually be wrong about this. Merriam Webster Dictionary It would appear more likely that the terms Agnostic Atheist, or, Agnostic Theist, are the pseudo terms.

I personally am an ex christian turned agnostic. I became an agnostic after studying and researching the history of The Speculative Society. I came to understand that it does not matter what we believe, and it is not something we need to argue about. In fact, what we believe does not even need to be spoken about. It can be our own little 33rd degree secret if we wish. Of course, it also does not need to be a taboo subject, and of course, it can be discussed if we so wish. However, for me, agnosticism is ultimately about admitting that I do not know either way whether there is a God or not, so therefore I am not involved in the argument between believers and atheists, as I am neither a believer nor non believer, and for the most part, it is not a subject I pay much attention to, beyond occasionally perhaps posting a thread such as this one. However, I would go so far as to say that I am not the only person on this website that is agnostic. In fact, I would go as far as to say that almost everyone in the world is agnostic if they are being perfectly honest with themselves and others, as nobody really knows for sure whether or not there is a God, or no God. I personally also only use the word God because that is the favoured expression. I actually prefer to use intelligent designer. Feel free to disagree with this if you so wish.

Providing evidence is a slow process which I can only do one at a time, as I also have a business to run and a Mother suffering from Pneumonia and COPD, so I can't dedicate my entire time to providing evidence which I was hoping was common knowledge. But I will begin with PJ Audits, aka Peter Allsop. Case 1 The above refers to this case here: Case number 2603443/2019 Gov.uk I will provide other cases. Case 2 This is Auditing Lancashire. The above refers to this Child Abuse case in link below. Lancashire Telegraph Case 3. Coincidentally this involves the Auditor in my YouTube video in the OP. The above video is regarding this case below where it is alleged that Berke Ersoy got found guilty of 18 drug dealing offences and is currently serving seven years. I personally can only find evidence of one drug offence. The Reading Chronicle

In the U.S. they are known as First Amendment Audits. Here is the definition from Wikipedia. First Amendment Audits Below is what Police Scotland have to say. PoliceScotland To provide an example I will link to a random YouTube video that you can watch. I will use an example from Fettes Police Station in Scotland for no other reason than I am from Edinburgh, so this video is of most interest to me. Also, considering the UK only has a handful of Auditors, many of those Auditors appear to have criminal records ranging from Child Abuse, Stalking and Harassment, to Drug Dealing. Therefore as this is a Science forum, perhaps we may also have theories regarding the Science behind the reasons that so many Police Auditors have a criminal record. Do you consider Police Auditors to be ethical or unethical?

I already provided this. The quote is below the YouTube video. The problem is that I have not worked out how to use the quote facility properly. "It has been revealed that Sadiq Khan's deputy Mayor for the Environment, Shirley Rodrigues sought to interfere with scientists hired by the Mayor's office. Sadiq Khan relies upon their research as evidence to back up his unpopular Londonwide ULEZ expansion" "At the London Assembly's Plenary, Peter Fortune AM seconded a motion condemning the Mayor and his team's behaviour, and calling for ULEZ to be cancelled as a result". the LondThe Independenton Ok, I think I am getting the hang of the quote function now! OkPlenary, Peter Fortune AM seconded a motion condemning the Mayor and his team's behaviour, and calling for ULEZ to be cancelled as a result.

Well, there appears to be widespread belief across the internet that Sadiq Khan misrepresented his Scientific report. This appears to have gone unchallenged. There also appears to be no notable challenge from anyone regarding Peter Fortune's allegations. This would make me suspect that disbelieving Peter Fortune's allegations could fall into the category of conspiracy theory. Also, as the accusations against Sadiq Khan are so widespread across the internet, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to provide any further documentation whatsoever. It is your responsibility to do your own due-diligence, and the accusation is well reported enough and notable enough that you can easily find copious amounts of results yourself by simply consulting any of many internet platforms, including Google.

That is fine. You can accuse Peter Fortune, the Deputy leader of the Conservative Party and London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley of telling lies at the London Assembly and Talk TV all you like. But why if he is lying about Imperial College's stance on ULEZ, has no other politicians accused of him of this? Do you have anything to support your conspiracy theory that the Deputy leader of the Conservative Party is telling lies?

I hope the research that you cite is not from The Imperial College, because it is alleged that Sadiq Khan lied about what The Imperial College believed. In actual fact The Imperial College believe that ULEZ will have less than a 3% improvement on air quality in London. I would like to see Science which counters that of The Imperial College. College London published a report that said the impact of ULEZ would be less than 3% on air quality in the capital. College London published a report that said the impact of ULEZ would be less than 3% on air quality in the capital.

Yes, the claim about the child that had air pollution as the reason for death on the death certificate is in fact true, I believe. Perhaps someone with Scientific knowledge could confirm just how a coroner could possibally know for a fact that a child's death was directly caused by air pollution. If nobody can, then I may consider this diagnosis to also be unscientific. I will be honest, my concern is that Low Emission Zones are just cash cows.

As I am not a Scientist I can't conduct my own studies, and I am reliant upon reading Scientific literature to form my opinions. Are you aware of any proven Scientific research which supports the requirement for Low Emission Zones that we are seeing pop up all over Europe, and not just in London?

Ok, please give me some time to make an argument for debate, and I will Edit my post

According to City Hall Conservatives Sadiq Khan's organisation tried to bribe a Scientific institution into lying about their research because the conclusion reached by the Scientific institution did not support the requirement for a ULEZ expansion. The claim is made at a London Assembly in the video below. Please watch the clip and give your Scientific opinions on whether or not Science supports Sadiq Khan or not. Claim made by Sadiq Khan's Scientific research team - Despite these improvements in air quality there was no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs or Asthma symptoms over this period. (This is referring to the ULEZ that was implemented in Central London). Claim made that Sadiq Khan's deputy Mayor sent an email to the Scientific institution saying - Hi Chris, Shirley has reviewed your study and has asked if you could reword your letter as it reads like Low Emission Zones have no impact at-all Summary The claim is that according to Sadiq Khan's very own Science institution whom he paid nearly one million pound to research the effects of car pollution on people's health, his very own Scentific institution said "there was no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs or Asthma symptoms over this period", and therefor Low Emission Zones have no impact at-all, and are simply a cash cow. So, what is the opinion of the Scientific community regarding the effects of Low Emission Zones?

Hello Scientists. I am a "non" Scientist that has found myself in a frustrating situation. I am currently debating against vaccine denialists on a debate platform. It is a good little platform in that it is fun to debate things. The evil thing about this however, is that the debaters become conflicted in their interests. They begin arguing just about anything, in order to try and gain points from the voters. A good example of this is another person like myself that debates anti-vaxxers, mistakenly found herself debating against me, when she mistook me for an anti-vaxxer. So she unwittingly found herself debating "against" the importance of sanitation, and she dishonestly continued with this debate, instead of admitting her mistake. "Horrifically" she has managed to convince a few "anti-vaxxers" that her debate is honest, and she is being awarded points. The debate i am referring to, is here. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1847/over-reliance-on-vaccinations-may-lead-to-profiteering-and-poor-sanitation Now i may not be doing a very good job of arguing my point, i dont know. But both the users that voted in favour of this woman, are "anti-vaxxers". You can find their votes by clicking on votes, and you can see the names of the users that voted. Now one of those users that voted, is currently debating against me, on this thread here. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1848/pediatric-study-shows-dtap-does-not-cause-autism-in-under-6-year-olds Now i am worried, that this user is now attempting to obfuscate the subject behind all types of wordplay objections, that barely have any relevance whatsoever, that his objections might actually be taken seriously by the voters, and yet again, an anti-vaxxer might be seen to win a debate against a person debating against vaccinations causing autism, etc. Just like a vaxxer found herself mistakenly arguing against washing ones hands, for no other reason, than to win points, because she was not honest enough to admit to the voters she had made a mistake. She even attempted to try and invent beliefs in me that i do not hold, to try and give herself something to argue against. She conned the voters, as a neutral person looking at it from a neutral point of view, should hopefully be able to establish. This subject might not seem important to some. But it is important to me. I am hoping to receive some assistance from the science community. That have the scienctific knowledge to know that having criticisms about "over reliance" on vaccines is nowhere near the same thing as being against vaccines. At the beginning of round 1, i wrote "Now the debate i am having here, in no way contradicts my belief in the good, and importance, of vaccines." My debate was that "to concentrate to much on vaccines and forget sanitation" is not good. Sanitation is important. Whether i made that "clear" i dont know. So i am looking for someone with scientific knowledge, that also agrees that sanitation is important, and that an over reliance on vaccines could lead to forgetting about sanitation. And i am also looking for someone with scientific knowledge about Tdap and Dtap vaccinations not causing autism. I am ultimately looking for people with scientific background, that are willing to forgive my lack of clarity, and believe this is an important subject, to help me out and make sure that the results of the debates i am having are reflective of the pro scientific contemporary understandings i am debating for