Talk:Children's Health Defense

Gatekeeper?

Is the issue that Jonathan Couey has raised enough to put the org away as 'Constitutes: gatekeeper' ? -- Sunvalley (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

At least gatekeeper? I would have thought. -- Robin (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If there was just this claim of Couey, I would rather not come down with that .. also considering what they (CHD) generally have against them (corporate power) and considering that the person who made the decision to kick him might have thought he snapped - I would not condemn them that easy. Personally have not seen anything that makes me suspicious, maybe appeasing a little to the mainstream but not more. The interviews that Brian Hooker does are all real imo (watched some of them). For the longest time, when I did catch an article from them, it was under the helm of Kennedy .. in the German speaking realm someone made a claim against the reliability of CHD recently -> [1] [2] [3] - but the powerpoint (made at the beginning of the mRNA push) goes along their established arguments: 1st that vaccines shall not contain metals/ or "PEG", then that mRNA (unknown as it is) does not have any established safety data and should therefore undergo testing for at least ten years or so - it seems that this German commentator has not looked at the slides (the PDF) in detail, or reads English that well ..all in all .. Gatekeeper seems not fair.-- Sunvalley (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Gatekeeper??

Couey has raised multiple concerns about the group. He has had a lot of personal dealings with the staff of CHD, and with others using the label "COVID dissident". He is pretty sweeping in his claims of bad faith, and cannot be assumed to be impartial, given for example his dismissal. Nevertheless, he makes some good points IMO. I suggest we try to tally up the main arguments for and against CHD as gatekeepers here. Please add/edit the below points (and to keep it easily readable, don't worry about signatures this time.) -- Robin (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I've retracted the gatekeeper? tag for the time being, to give the group the benefit of the doubt, because on reflection the evidence against them isn't convincing enough. -- Robin (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

For

Association with multiple suspicious characters, including members of "Team Worst Case Scenario":

• On the payroll:
  • Mary Holland
  • Brian Hooker
• Promotion of materials by:
  • Robert Malone who brought a lawsuit to shut others up
  • Meryl Nass
• Collaboration with:
  • Del Bigtree
  • Steve Kirsch
• Promoting the official opposition narrative of Covid as a lab leaked gain-of-functioned virus
• Dismissal of Jay Couey after his public criticism of Malone
• Failure hitherto to effect much change (although they are up against corporate power, deep running corruption and a belief system that vaccines equal good health)

Against

• Films which are effective at raising the issue of jab safety: e.g. Vaxxed, Vaxxed 2, Vaxxed 3
• The rest of the output of CHD public raising the question of vaccine safety, especially of to the adjuvants (vaccines in principle are not questioned)
• Lobbying and other activities

If there is some real criticism that brings them into an area where there is the possibility that they are gatekeepers, then I don't see it. While I do not agree with their line on everything, it does not need to be put in as stark a term as gatekeeper. Also think of Wikileaks. While Assange is genuine, the deep state put major effort into placing people inside Wikileaks.

GigaohmBiologicalArchive

I can't watch all of this video archive, can you point me to one video that gives the best overview on Team Worst Case? There are two videos and one podcast on Couey's WS article, one of those? --Sunvalley (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on this, d.v. Organisation is not Couey's strong suit. -- Robin (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)