Difference between revisions of "David Grimes"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (references section)
(Straw man)
(18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{person
 
{{person
−
|WP=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Robert_Grimes
+
|wikipedia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Robert_Grimes
−
|constitutes=academic, journalist
+
|constitutes=physicist, journalist
 
|twitter=https://twitter.com/drg1985  
 
|twitter=https://twitter.com/drg1985  
−
|interests=Conspiracy Theories
+
|interests=Conspiracy Theories, Cancer, Water Fluoridation, Climate change, Mainstream media, Electromagnetic radiation,fact checking, straw men
 +
|image=David Grimes.jpg
 +
|birth_date=1985
 +
|website=http://www.davidrobertgrimes.com/
 +
|description=Says the things wanted, therefore allowed access to {{ccm}} as a 'debunker'. Very fond of the [[straw man]] argument.
 
}}
 
}}
−
'''David Robert Grimes''' is a physicist and cancer researcher at the [[University of Oxford]]. He also writes for ''[[The Irish Times]]'' and ''[[The Guardian]]''.<ref name="theguardian">"[http://www.theguardian.com/profile/david-robert-grimes David Robert Grimes]", theguardian.com. Retrieved 27 February 2016.</ref>
+
'''David Robert Grimes''' is a [[physicist]] and post-doctoral [[cancer]] researcher at the [[University of Oxford]] .<ref name=pom>https://pieceofmindful.com/2016/10/24/too-many-people-on-the-viability-of-conspiratorial-beliefs/</ref> He also writes for {{ccm}} outlets such as ''[[The Irish Times]]'' and ''[[The Guardian]]''.<ref name="theguardian">"[http://www.theguardian.com/profile/david-robert-grimes David Robert Grimes]", theguardian.com. Retrieved 27 February 2016.</ref>
−
<ref name="irishtimes">"[http://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.1213540?q=david%20robert%20grimes&writerName=David%20Robert%20Grimes David Robert Grimes]", irishtimes.com. Retrieved 27 February 2016.</ref> In 2016 he published a paper which has lead to speculation that he might be part of an organised effort to try to equate dissent with mental illness.<ref>[[Document:Elites Link Anti-Government Thought to Mental Illness]]</ref>
+
<ref name="irishtimes">"[http://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.1213540?q=david%20robert%20grimes&writerName=David%20Robert%20Grimes David Robert Grimes]", irishtimes.com. Retrieved 27 February 2016.</ref> " He rarely questions the antics of Big Pharma, yet - if he does - there always seems to be an ulterior motive at work."<ref name=obc/> He has written articles on water fluoridation, climate change, and cancer cures, and casting doubt on the medical power of [[cannabis]]. He is a major pusher of the "[[safe and effective]]" [[vaccine]] narrative. In 2016 he published a paper on "[[conspiracy theories]]" which was widely reported by the {{ccm}}, leading to speculation that he might be part of an organised effort to try to equate [[dissent]] with [[mental illness]].<ref>[[Document:Elites Link Anti-Government Thought to Mental Illness]]</ref>
  
−
==Paper on "Conspiracy Theories"==
+
== Funding ==
−
In 2016, Dr. David Grimes, a physicist, created a simplistic statistical model of conspiracies, which was cited by the {{ccm}}, including the [[BBC]].<ref>http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684</ref> He suggested that it "might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives".<ref name=grimes>[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905 "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs"]</ref> Grimes used a simplistic statistical model of conspiracies and the number of conspirators involved, the amount of time that has passed, and the intrinsic probability of a conspiracy failing. He calibrated this model using three exposed conspiracies (or collusions), without an explanation of what qualified them for inclusion in his model:
+
Grimes "receives funding from [[Wellcome Trust]], and is endorsed by "Sense About Science". He is also a "consultant" to undisclosed "private companies" and "charitable" organizations."<ref name=obc>https://objectiveskeptic.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-ugly-face-of-science-david-robert.html</ref>
−
# The [[NSA/PRISM]] programme "exposed by" [[Edward Snowden]];
 
−
# The [[Tuskegee syphilis experiment]] "exposed by" [[Peter Buxtun]]; and,
 
−
# The [[FBI Laboratory]] "exposed by" Dr [[Frederic Whitehurst]].
 
  
−
Dr Grimes' assumption that everyone involved in a conspiracy is equally well informed about it flies in the face of the hierarchical nature of organisations and what is known about conspiracies. His conclusion that "large conspiracies (≥1000 agents) quickly become untenable and prone to failure"<ref name=grimes/> contradicts known history such as the [[Manhattan Project]] (~129,000 people, unexposed after 6 years) or [[Operation Gladio]] (?,000 people, exposed by external investigation after ~36 years). The Manhattan Project, involved around 129,000 workers, of whom a 1945 ''[[Life (magazine)|Life]]'' article estimated that before the [[Hiroshima bombing|Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki bombing]]s "probably no more than a few dozen men in the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on atoms was involved." The magazine wrote that over 100,000 others employed on the project "worked like moles in the dark".<ref name="life1945082091">{{cite news | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hkgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=true | title=Manhattan Project: Its Scientists Have Harnessed Nature's Basic Force | work=Life | date=20 August 1945 | accessdate=25 November 2011 | author=Wickware, Francis Sill | page=91}}</ref><ref name="owens">{{cite web | url=http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/06/the-secret-city/100326/#img06 | title=The Secret City / Calutron operators at their panels, in the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, during World War II. | work=The Atlantic | date=25 June 2012 | accessdate=25 June 2012}}</ref> If ''Life'' is to be believed, the assumption that all personnel are equally informed would appear in this case to out by 4-5 orders of magnitude, directly contradicting Grimes' finding that large conspiracies "quickly become untenable."<ref name=grimes/>
+
==Mainstream media 'debunker'"==
 +
Grimes has a reputation for 'debunking' in [[corporate controlled media]], writing for many outlets and appearing on [[BBC]] radio and television in particular. His work is prolific, and he repeats the status quo on topics such as [[Water Fluoridation]], dismissing alternative evidence of [[toxicity]] and parroting the [[CDC]] and [[WHO]] lines<ref>https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/anti-fluoride-lobby-can-t-get-its-teeth-into-the-truth-1.1520290</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/apr/04/politicians-anti-fluoridation-campaigners-fluoride-water</ref>. He supports the conventional view<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/05/denying-climate-change-scepticism-motivated-reasoning</ref> on climate-change, calling skeptics 'denialists'<ref>https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/climate-change-is-real-ignore-the-denialists-1.1570833</ref>. He has also repeatedly dismissed suggestions that [[cannabis]] can help with cancer or other illnesses<ref>https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-rise-of-the-cannabis-cult-dont-believe-the-hype-about-medical-marijuana/</ref>, echoing the standard [[Big Pharma]] line. He also claims alternative [[cancer]] cures have no merit<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/jan/24/cancer-treatment-myths-clean-eating-cannabis-homeopathy-alternative</ref>, and was awarded for his work on fluoride by Sense About Science<ref>http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/2014-john-maddox-prize/</ref>.
  
−
===''Exposure''===
+
==Vaccine pusher==    
−
Canadian biologist [http://injusticebusters.org/index.htm/Michael_Pyshnov.htm Michael Pyshnov] noted (in a quickly removed comment headed "D R Grimes scientific paper on conspiracy theories is a political fabrication") that Dr Grimes wanted the public to believe that a leak of information, the ''exposure'', would automatically result in a scandal:<ref>[http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=88138 "D R Grimes scientific paper on conspiracy theories is a political fabrication"] comment removed</ref>
+
Grimes is a known [[vaccine]] agent<ref>https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/anti-hpv-vaccine-myths-have-fatal-consequences-1.3213118</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/jan/11/why-is-there-opposition-hpv-vaccine-cervical-cancer</ref>, and has suppressed the work of Dr. [[Andrew Wakefield]] in national media, protesting the screening of his documentary and labeling him a "..long-debunked fear merchant whose attempt to paint himself as a Galileo-like figure is at once completely narcissistic and utterly dishonest".<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/16/disgraced-antimmr-vaccine-doctor-andrew-wakefield-gets-invitation/</ref>.
−
<blockquote>I wrote my comment on the Grimes paper saying that the paper is wrong. I said, there is no such sure mechanism that will make “a leak” into a scandal, unless the {{ccm}} decides to make that scandal. I said that corruption in mass media prevents scandals and I gave my experience with ''Nature'' magazine (posted at http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/nature.html). My comment lived only a few hours, and was removed. I received no email explaining the reasons. Moreover, my communications with the journal were electronically cut off, I cannot write to them either. Here is my comment, a [https://pyshnov.wordpress.com/plosmycomment/ screen shot.]<ref>[https://pyshnov.wordpress.com/plosmycomment/ "D R Grimes scientific paper on conspiracy theories is a political fabrication"] screen shot</ref></blockquote>
 
  
−
PLOS-One published another comment that echoed Michael Pyshnov's argument, but it too was removed early in February. Entitled "Between the ''exposure'' and the ''scandal'' stands the media declaring what we are expected to believe", [[Patrick Haseldine]] argued that the full extent of the [[FBI Laboratory|FBI/Crime Lab]] scandal had never been exposed in the commercially-controlled media:<ref>[http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=88147 "Between the ''exposure'' and the ''scandal'' stands the media declaring what we are expected to believe"]</ref>
+
==Dismissing EMF health concerns==
−
<blockquote>In the 2009 film [[Lockerbie Revisited]] (broadcast only in the Netherlands) [[Frederic Whitehurst|Dr Whitehurst]] was interviewed and described the [[FBI Laboratory]] as a "crime scene", where his unqualified colleague [[Thomas Thurman]] would routinely alter Whitehurst's scientific reports over a five-year period. The film's researcher [[Ian Ferguson]] reported that the timer fragment - allegedly found in the [[Pan Am Flight 103]] debris and which allegedly was part of the MEBO timer that triggered the Lockerbie bomb - had not been tested for explosives residue because of 'budgetary reasons'. Whitehurst did not accept that cost could be the reason since it would have taken him just a morning's work to have tested the timer fragment. In the film, [[Thomas Thurman|Thurman]] confirmed that the fragment - the only real piece of evidence against Libya - had been brought over from the UK to the FBI Crime Lab, where he had personally identified it as coming from the circuit board of a MEBO MST-13 timer, only 20 of which had been made and all were supplied to Libya.
+
Grimes dismisses concerns about Wi-Fi and cellphone electromagnetic frequency in the mainstream media<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/feb/17/electromagnetic-radiation-doesnt-make-you-ill-or-give-you-cancer-heres-why</ref>. Predictably, he also attacked claims a conspiracy might be at play<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/21/mobile-phones-are-not-a-health-hazard</ref>. He also published an academic paper, which criticised another paper which claimed Wi-Fi was linked to [[cancer]] and [[autism]]<ref>https://peerj.com/preprints/3355/</ref>.
  
−
A 2001 article by French journalist [[Pierre Péan]] called the FBI's [[Tom Thurman]] the expert in fabricating evidence:
+
===5G===
−
:"It is striking to note the similarity of the 'scientific' evidence discovered by the FBI's Tom Thurman in both the Lockerbie and UTA cases. Of the tens of thousands of pieces of debris collected at each disaster site, one lone piece of printed circuit board was found and, miracle of miracles, in each case the fragment bore markings that allowed for positive identification: MEBO in the [[Pan Am Flight 103|Lockerbie case]] and TY in the case of [[UTA Flight 772]]. Despite the common findings of the DCPJ, the DST and the Prefecture of Police crime laboratory, [[Jean-Louis Bruguière|Juge Bruguière]] chose to believe Thurman, the expert in fabricating evidence."
+
In 2019 he was widely cited as "a cancer researcher".<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html</ref>
  
−
Thurman was not required to testify as a witness at either trial for the [[Pan Am Flight 103]] or [[UTA Flight 772]] bombings even though the main incriminatory evidence in both cases was a tiny fragment of PCB that he had discovered. On 31 January 2001, the Libyan [[Abdelbaset al-Megrahi]] was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and, in 1999, six Libyans were convicted in absentia of the UTA bombing. If that FBI Crime Lab scandal has really been exposed, as Dr Grimes claims, why haven't the convictions of those seven Libyans been overturned by now?<ref>[https://www.facebook.com/justice.for.Almegrahi/posts/10207614051123569 "TIME TO EXPOSE A CONSPIRACY/SCANDAL"]</ref></blockquote>
+
==Government advisor==
 +
Grimes has been known to secretly advise governments and his exactly influence is unclear. He has been active in trying to criminalize people providing alternative [[cancer]] treatments in Ireland<ref>https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-quack-law-to-stop-peddling-of-fake-cancer-treatments-xh3fnk0s6</ref>.
  
−
Another published critical comment (by Professor [[Jonathan Jones]] of Oxford University) which identified a basic mathematical flaw in the methods section of Dr Grimes' paper still survives:<ref>[http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=88142 "Basic mathematical flaw in the methods section"] by Professor Jonathan Jones of Oxford University</ref>
+
==Paper on "Conspiracy Theories"==
−
<blockquote>While it is good to see both the author (Dr Grimes) and the handling editor (Chris Bauch) responding here, I am surprised by their apparent insouciance about this error.
+
In [[2016]] David Grimes published a simplistic statistical model of conspiracies which he proposed "might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives".<ref name=grimes>[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905 "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs"]</ref> This was given what one commentator referred to as "massive [corporate] [[corporate media|media]] coverage"<ref name=pom/>, including the [[BBC]].<ref>http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684</ref> Ignoring the possibility of [[compartmentalization]] he assumed that each conspirator was equally well informed about the conspiracy and that each was equally likely to "expose" it, which would result in its instant "failure". He calibrated this model using three exposed conspiracies (or collusions), with no explanation of why he had chosen these three:
 +
# The [[NSA/PRISM]] programme "exposed by" [[Edward Snowden]];
 +
# The [[Tuskegee syphilis experiment]] "exposed by" [[Peter Buxtun]]; and,
 +
# The [[FBI Laboratory]] "exposed by" Dr [[Frederic Whitehurst]].
  
−
Beyond that my principal concern is how this paper could ever have passed peer review. A non-monotonic cdf is such a fundamental error (it implies an underlying pdf with negative components, that is negative probabilities) that it should have been immediately obvious to any competent reviewer that the paper could not possibly be correct. The error is not hidden: the author quite openly discusses the non-monotonic behaviour and its supposed significance, and depicts non-monotonic cdf curves in figures 1 and 4.
+
===Equal information===
 +
Grimes' assumption that everyone in a conspiracy is equally well informed about it flies in the face of the hierarchical nature of organisations and what is known about conspiracies. The [[Manhattan Project]] involved over 100,000 workers, of whom a [[1945]] ''[[Life (magazine)|Life]]'' article estimated that the [[compartmentalisation]] was such that before the [[Hiroshima bombing|Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki bombing]]s "probably no more than a few dozen men in the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on atoms was involved." The magazine wrote that over 100,000 others employed on the project "worked like moles in the dark".<ref name="life1945082091">https://books.google.com/books?id=hkgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=true </ref><ref name="owens">http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/06/the-secret-city/100326/#img06 </ref> If ''Life'' is to be believed, the assumption that all personnel are equally informed would appear in this case to out by 4-5 orders of magnitude, directly contradicting Grimes' finding that large conspiracies "quickly become untenable."<ref name=grimes/>
  
−
When a journal publishes a paper containing a trivial, obvious and fundamental error then legitimate questions can and should be raised about how this happened.</blockquote>
+
===Instant exposure===
−
 
+
{{YouTubeVideo
−
===PLOS journal scam===
+
|code=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvUZ02EXUIk
−
On 29 January 2016, Michael Pyshnov wrote an article entitled "PLOS journal scam" on his own website explaining how "bizarre science politics" and "crooked journals" are destroying published science:
+
|align=left
−
<blockquote>This scam reminds me of the old and forgotten stories from Balkan countries about the tricks of the gypsies or jewish prostitutes. Only this now is a multi-million dollars operation. Interestingly, the PLOS journal was founded by some members of the London based charity – COPE ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Publication_Ethics Committee on Publication Ethics]), of which I wrote several years ago (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/committee.htm). The COPE style was also shockingly deceitful and unprofessional, but for some reason this charitable organisation gained control over 5000 of scientific journals, issuing their Code on publication ethics and collecting the fees from these journals for COPE services. This was when they had no scientists on their board. How serious is all this? I don’t think it is serious at all. True, money changed hands, the world received a new “proof” that conspiracy theories are wrong which can be exploited by those who wish to exploit it. Science made a small step farther down the drain. And the gypsies are ready for their new adventures.<ref>[https://pyshnov.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/plos-journal-are-crooks-defend-corruption-of-science/ "PLOS journal scam"]</ref></blockquote>
+
|caption=The televised confession by Loyd Jowers of involvement in the [[MLK assassination]]
 +
|date=16 December 1993
 +
|subjects=MLK/Assassination
 +
|authors=Loyd Jowers
 +
}}
 +
The paper ignores the fact that [[corporate media is controlled]], assuming that any conspirator could instantly expose a [[conspiracy]]. This ignores historical evidence to the contrary such as, for example, the televised 1993 confession of [[Loyd Jowers]] that he was involved in the [[assassination of Martin Luther King]]. Not only do a large proportion of the US public remain ignorant of this fact, but the [[FBI]] showed no interest in his testimony, even after the 1999 civil trial in which a jury unanimously found that Jowers and agents of the US government were involved in his killing.<ref>https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/apr/04/fbi-mlk-jowers/</ref>
 +
{{SMWDocs}}
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>

Revision as of 15:54, 22 January 2023

Person.png David Grimes   Twitter WebsiteRdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
(physicist, journalist)
David Grimes.jpg
Born1985
Interests • Conspiracy Theories
• Cancer
• Water Fluoridation
• “Climate change”
• Mainstream media
• Electromagnetic radiation
• “fact checking”
• straw men
Says the things wanted, therefore allowed access to commercially-controlled media as a 'debunker'. Very fond of the straw man argument.

David Robert Grimes is a physicist and post-doctoral cancer researcher at the University of Oxford .[1] He also writes for commercially-controlled media outlets such as The Irish Times and The Guardian.[2] [3] " He rarely questions the antics of Big Pharma, yet - if he does - there always seems to be an ulterior motive at work."[4] He has written articles on water fluoridation, climate change, and cancer cures, and casting doubt on the medical power of cannabis. He is a major pusher of the "safe and effective" vaccine narrative. In 2016 he published a paper on "conspiracy theories" which was widely reported by the commercially-controlled media, leading to speculation that he might be part of an organised effort to try to equate dissent with mental illness.[5]

Funding

Grimes "receives funding from Wellcome Trust, and is endorsed by "Sense About Science". He is also a "consultant" to undisclosed "private companies" and "charitable" organizations."[4]

Mainstream media 'debunker'"

Grimes has a reputation for 'debunking' in corporate controlled media, writing for many outlets and appearing on BBC radio and television in particular. His work is prolific, and he repeats the status quo on topics such as Water Fluoridation, dismissing alternative evidence of toxicity and parroting the CDC and WHO lines[6][7]. He supports the conventional view[8] on climate-change, calling skeptics 'denialists'[9]. He has also repeatedly dismissed suggestions that cannabis can help with cancer or other illnesses[10], echoing the standard Big Pharma line. He also claims alternative cancer cures have no merit[11], and was awarded for his work on fluoride by Sense About Science[12].

Vaccine pusher

Grimes is a known vaccine agent[13][14], and has suppressed the work of Dr. Andrew Wakefield in national media, protesting the screening of his documentary and labeling him a "..long-debunked fear merchant whose attempt to paint himself as a Galileo-like figure is at once completely narcissistic and utterly dishonest".[15].

Dismissing EMF health concerns

Grimes dismisses concerns about Wi-Fi and cellphone electromagnetic frequency in the mainstream media[16]. Predictably, he also attacked claims a conspiracy might be at play[17]. He also published an academic paper, which criticised another paper which claimed Wi-Fi was linked to cancer and autism[18].

5G

In 2019 he was widely cited as "a cancer researcher".[19]

Government advisor

Grimes has been known to secretly advise governments and his exactly influence is unclear. He has been active in trying to criminalize people providing alternative cancer treatments in Ireland[20].

Paper on "Conspiracy Theories"

In 2016 David Grimes published a simplistic statistical model of conspiracies which he proposed "might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives".[21] This was given what one commentator referred to as "massive [corporate] media coverage"[1], including the BBC.[22] Ignoring the possibility of compartmentalization he assumed that each conspirator was equally well informed about the conspiracy and that each was equally likely to "expose" it, which would result in its instant "failure". He calibrated this model using three exposed conspiracies (or collusions), with no explanation of why he had chosen these three:

  1. The NSA/PRISM programme "exposed by" Edward Snowden;
  2. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment "exposed by" Peter Buxtun; and,
  3. The FBI Laboratory "exposed by" Dr Frederic Whitehurst.

Equal information

Grimes' assumption that everyone in a conspiracy is equally well informed about it flies in the face of the hierarchical nature of organisations and what is known about conspiracies. The Manhattan Project involved over 100,000 workers, of whom a 1945 Life article estimated that the compartmentalisation was such that before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings "probably no more than a few dozen men in the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on atoms was involved." The magazine wrote that over 100,000 others employed on the project "worked like moles in the dark".[23][24] If Life is to be believed, the assumption that all personnel are equally informed would appear in this case to out by 4-5 orders of magnitude, directly contradicting Grimes' finding that large conspiracies "quickly become untenable."[21]

Instant exposure

The televised confession by Loyd Jowers of involvement in the MLK assassination

The paper ignores the fact that corporate media is controlled, assuming that any conspirator could instantly expose a conspiracy. This ignores historical evidence to the contrary such as, for example, the televised 1993 confession of Loyd Jowers that he was involved in the assassination of Martin Luther King. Not only do a large proportion of the US public remain ignorant of this fact, but the FBI showed no interest in his testimony, even after the 1999 civil trial in which a jury unanimously found that Jowers and agents of the US government were involved in his killing.[25]

Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.



References

  1. ↑ a b https://pieceofmindful.com/2016/10/24/too-many-people-on-the-viability-of-conspiratorial-beliefs/
  2. ↑ "David Robert Grimes", theguardian.com. Retrieved 27 February 2016.
  3. ↑ "David Robert Grimes", irishtimes.com. Retrieved 27 February 2016.
  4. ↑ a b https://objectiveskeptic.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-ugly-face-of-science-david-robert.html
  5. ↑ Document:Elites Link Anti-Government Thought to Mental Illness
  6. ↑ https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/anti-fluoride-lobby-can-t-get-its-teeth-into-the-truth-1.1520290
  7. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/apr/04/politicians-anti-fluoridation-campaigners-fluoride-water
  8. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/05/denying-climate-change-scepticism-motivated-reasoning
  9. ↑ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/climate-change-is-real-ignore-the-denialists-1.1570833
  10. ↑ https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-rise-of-the-cannabis-cult-dont-believe-the-hype-about-medical-marijuana/
  11. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/jan/24/cancer-treatment-myths-clean-eating-cannabis-homeopathy-alternative
  12. ↑ http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/2014-john-maddox-prize/
  13. ↑ https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/anti-hpv-vaccine-myths-have-fatal-consequences-1.3213118
  14. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/jan/11/why-is-there-opposition-hpv-vaccine-cervical-cancer
  15. ↑ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/16/disgraced-antimmr-vaccine-doctor-andrew-wakefield-gets-invitation/
  16. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/feb/17/electromagnetic-radiation-doesnt-make-you-ill-or-give-you-cancer-heres-why
  17. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/21/mobile-phones-are-not-a-health-hazard
  18. ↑ https://peerj.com/preprints/3355/
  19. ↑ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html
  20. ↑ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-quack-law-to-stop-peddling-of-fake-cancer-treatments-xh3fnk0s6
  21. ↑ a b "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs"
  22. ↑ http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684
  23. ↑ https://books.google.com/books?id=hkgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=true
  24. ↑ http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/06/the-secret-city/100326/#img06
  25. ↑ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/apr/04/fbi-mlk-jowers/
Retrieved from "https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=David_Grimes&oldid=258324"