Joel Harrison’s Selective Paranoia: Autism Investigated’s Editor Made Up MPH Degree, But Dr. Montanari’s Attacker Was Just “Some Nut Case”

Harrison ECBT

Joel Harrison, Every Child By Two

…but when I contacted George Washington U, they responded that they give out no information on students, not even confirming they actually received a degree from them. Seems a bit extreme? And the library has NO record of an MPH thesis by Jake or Jacob Crosby! -Joel Harrison, Dun! Dun! Dunnnnnnnn!!!

Joel Harrison is a pro-vaccine blogger for pharma front group Every Child By Two. He appeared on Autism Investigated repeatedly demanding to see the editor’s epidemiology thesis for his Master of Public Health (MPH) degree. The editor respectfully declined and gave his reasoning.

But as the featured quote makes clear, Harrison couldn’t let go. So he decided to call the editor’s alma mater to find out the truth! Those mercury-laced flu shots he gets every year apparently made him more intelligent.

His grudge against Autism Investigated seemingly stems from the one prior Autism Investigated post that actually mentioned him by name. Even though the post is from 2016, he’s still irked that Autism Investigated referred to one of his online rants as a rant. When it then became clear that he was using the thread to pump his own blogs with clickbait, Autism Investigated canned his comments.

He then returned after scientist Dr. Stefan Montanari was punched in the face for raising his voice against vaccinations. Harrison showed his paranoia is selective:

Did the person who punched him mention vaccines? Nope! Is there any mention that the assailant was a vaccine supporter? Nope! In law your claim and that of other antivaccinationists would be called: “facts not in evidence.” I guess for antivaccinationists it never entered their minds that he could have just been some nut case.  

Joel Harrion’s Selective Paranoia: A Summary

So the man punched Dr. Montanari in the face for speaking out after his talk on vaccines. The man also knew who Dr. Montanari’s wife was enough to then threaten her. Yet the assailant was just “some nut case.”

But Autism Investigated’s editor doesn’t actually have a master’s degree, and George Washington University is in on the cover-up. Makes sense.
"seems a little crazy"

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

25 Thoughts on “Joel Harrison’s Selective Paranoia: Autism Investigated’s Editor Made Up MPH Degree, But Dr. Montanari’s Attacker Was Just “Some Nut Case”

  1. J Harrison on July 2, 2018 at 8:30 pm said:

    I realize that you are so incredibly dishonest that you more than likely won’t post this. Just proof that on your blog you control the debate so it is one-sided, not an example of scientific inquiry; but more of propaganda; but here goes:

    1. I contacted Every Child By Two and asked if they would consider posting articles I was writing. I did NOT and do NOT have any personal relationship with them, nor have I ever received even a free cup of coffee from them or, for that matter, from anyone regarding my articles. I have NEVER worked for the CDC, FDA, or any pharmaceutical company nor own pharmaceutical stocks or bonds. ECBT did NOT choose the topics I wrote on and were free to not post any of my papers. I write because I believe in what I write based on 50 years of education, experience, and reading. However, as opposed to you, I do not claim to have God-like certainty. If new information with a strong scientific basis was to appear, I am always willing to change some or all of my scientifically-based opinions.

    2. You mention in 2016 that you called one of my articles a “rant.” I just re-read it and asked several friends to do as well. Anyone choosing to actually read it would discover that “rant” in your vocabulary means “an argument that contradicts what you choose to believe and that you are incapable of refuting it. And NO, it wasn’t the reason I decided to look more closely at you. Besides subscribing to paranoid delusions of a vast world-wide vaccine conspiracy, you also seem to suffer from Delusions of Grandeur. I am between writing papers, being retired have lots of time on my hands, and you are such a pathetic example of an antivaccinationist, I decided to waste some time.

    3. As for Montanari’s Attacker, the fact that he knew the wife’s name could mean a number of things, e.g., he had a personal beef with the Montanari’s or, quite simply, overheard it. You continue to enter “facts not in evidence.” Even if the attacker was provaccine, only in your warped paranoid conspiracy theory delusions would that prove anything more than one isolated nut case was anything more than just that. You just have to make every square peg fit into a round hole. You cited Montanari:

    “While I was cordially talking with these people, suddenly, for no apparent reason, a gentleman came up behind me shouting “Don’t dare raise your voice!” I turned my head and, in a fraction of a second, unexpectedly, he hit me with a violent punch between my ear and my cheekbone. For a moment I lost my senses and I was supported by those around me, while the character was moving away, crossing my wife who, meanwhile, was coming out on the sidewalk. To her, that gentleman shouted a death threat.”

    And then you wrote: “What Dr. Montanari describes is coming to America. Scientists here have been targeted for their research on vaccinations. A doctor has received a death threat from someone who said he plans to massacre anti-vaccinationists, and the FBI blamed her. It’s only a matter of time until what happened to Dr. Montanari starts happening in America.”

    I don’t see anything in Montanari’s quote where the attacker “said he plans to massacre antivaccinationists.” And actually Paul Offit did receive threats and several others; but that doesn’t prove, at least in my mind, that antivaccinationists are, in general, violent people. So, even if some antivaccinationist received a threat, only proof that in a nation of 300 million, there are always extremist on any position. Again, facts not in evidence. You generalize from one or a few instances to your paranoid delusions.
    You also failed to respond to a comment I submitted that Montanari’s research was methodologically unsound; but even if he did find nanoparticles in vaccines, we have nanoparticles in our food, water, etc. In fact, a nanoparticle of cyanide, arsenic, even plutonium would have NO effect whatsover.

    4. I contacted friends who are on faculties at several Schools of Public Health and if one knows the graduation year, the list of candidates, degree received, and title of their thesis/dissertation is available. In addition, a copy of ALL MPH theses and PhD Dissertations are in their respective libraries. I find it strange that you claim to have written an MPH thesis on vaccine safety with help from the Geiers and don’t want anyone to know about it. What happened? Did you find vaccines were safer than you choose to believe and, given your ideology, simply want to forget it? Since most schools give a grade on MPH theses, did yours just barely pass?

    5. On Link-in you list yourself as being a PhD candidate at the UT School of Public Health; yet my understanding is that you are NO longer with the program. That is the only information I could obtain through sources. So, are you lying about being a PhD candidate? Were you kicked out of the program?

    6. Can’t you at least spell my name correctly, not “Harrion”; but “Harrison”

    7. The fact that you continuously attack people’s character and motives rather than, as I do, point by point, with extensive references, clearly shows your lack of ethics and inability to actually in a scholarly scientific approach defend your position. Quite simply, you are a despicable excuse for a human being. And, yes, that is attacking you. I guess sometimes one has to lower oneself to the gutter level where beings such as yourself reside.

    • I say no such thing on Linkedin, Joel.

    • I have to agree with Joel H… I know Montanari and Gatti professionally. The pro-vax side is FILLED with nutcases who seem hellbent on injuring as many children as possible in the name of increasing vaccine uptake. Ok, that’s hyperbole. But they do go nuts whenever someone wants to discuss risk and show utter disregard for the fact that 100% uptake means all who will be injured or killed by vaccination will be found and injured. Joel wasted dozens of hours insulting my intelligence and performing arm-chair psychoanalysis on me at my blog. The fact is vaccine risk awareness increases every day, with more people witnessing their loved ones injured, and turning to social media they find an avalanche of experiences by others that match their own. In the future, injecting thimerosal and aluminum will appear as insane as bloodletting. Epidemiology provides blunt tools for assessing causality. We need actual science, not correlation studies. [END OF RANT]

      • “The pro-vax side is FILLED with nutcases who seem hellbent on injuring as many children as possible in the name of increasing vaccine uptake.” – They don’t seem hellbent, they ARE hellbent. Epidemiology is blunt, but even that proved vaccines are bad.

  2. Hans Litten on July 3, 2018 at 7:50 am said:

    Informed Consent




    The ability to make decisions about what goes into our bodies is a basic human right. This personal autonomy is challenged whenever government requires mandatory vaccinations. Indeed, sticking needles into a human body is the very definition of intrusive.

    For this reason, I am introducing “Informed Consent” legislation to require patients and parents be given information before they consent to vaccinations. Consistent with my successful medical cannabis initiative, I believe all medical decisions should be between a patient and their physician – including the right to informed consent or informed refusal in the use of vaccines.

    I am also introducing a Resolution calling upon Congress to repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. This federal law prevents those harmed by a vaccine from suing pharmaceutical companies making these products. I believe this Act violates patient’s rights by limiting options to refuse vaccinations or seek due process of law as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.

    My goal is to ensure people are first given an explanation of the potential benefits and the potential risks whenever a vaccine is administered. Only then are people able to exercise their basic human right to decide whether or not to allow intrusion into their bodies.

    Informed Consent is already required for a number of medical treatments and procedures: surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and blood transfusions. My legislation would extend patients’ rights to Informed Consent to vaccinations by requiring them to be informed of the potential risks and benefits of the vaccinations they are being given. More importantly, my legislation will require patients be given this information prior to their consenting to receive a vaccination.

    I believe Informed Consent should, at a minimum, mean the person from whom consent is being sought be given the opportunity to understand what they are being given, what the risks and benefits are, and other potential consequences of the procedure they are facing.

    Physicians and researchers are divided on the impacts of vaccines on children – especially the relationship of vaccines to autism – plus a number of other conditions and medical circumstances where vaccination may not be considered safe.

    From the 1940’s when the first autism cases were diagnosed to the 1980’s when the vaccine schedule was expanded, the rate of autism remained relatively stable. In the early 1990’s, parents and physicians witnessed an alarming rise, which some call an epidemic, in autism rates. In one decade, the rate of autism increased 500%: from one in 2,500 to one in 500.

    A reanalysis of a 2004 CDC study showed a higher connection between incidences of autism for children receiving the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine prior to 36 months of age. In 2008, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program awarded a family roughly $1.5 Million for a vaccine’s role in an autism-related diagnosis.

    Until these issues are further researched and/or a Vaccine Safety Commission is established, I believe no patient or parent should be required to submit to a vaccination without Informed Consent.

    I hope my colleagues in the Senate and House will agree: Informed Consent is a basic human right of consenting or refusing a medical treatment or procedure – including vaccinations.

  3. Hans Litten on July 3, 2018 at 8:08 am said:

    Flu Vaccine Grown in Dog Kidney Cells Another Failure
    July 03, 2018 • 4,107 views

     A cell-based flu vaccine, Flucelvax, grown in dog kidney cells became available during the 2017 to 2018 flu season
     Flucelvax, made by Seqirus, was supposed to offer advantages over egg-based flu vaccines, which are notoriously problematic
     A study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed the cell-based vaccine worked only a little bit better than the conventional flu shot in protecting seniors — which isn’t saying much
     While flu vaccines overall had only 24 percent effectiveness in preventing flu-related hospitalizations in people aged 65 and older, the Flucelvax vaccine had an effectiveness rate of only 26.5 percent in that population (& that is probably using the fraudulent relative risk measure !)

  4. J Harrison on July 3, 2018 at 2:10 pm said:

    Well, after not posting two of my comments, you posted my entire most recent one. Perhaps, you have more integrity than I thought? On a number of your posts, at the bottom you included:

    “Jake Crosby is editor of the website Autism Investigated. Crosby has a masters in Public Health in epedemiology and is now pursuing a Ph.D. in epidemiology.”( From January 12, 2017, after post entitled: “BREAKING: RFK JR. ASKED TO HEAD VACCINE SAFETY COMMITTEE” at: )

    And on Linked-in (accessed June 29, 2018), you include the logo of University of Texas School of Public Health and below it:

    “The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) School of Public Health
    Field Of Study Epidemiology
    Dates attended or expected graduation 2013 – 2017”

    While it doesn’t actually state PhD candidate, since above it you list your MPH, one would assume you were going for the next higher degree. So, the question is quite simple: Are you currently a PhD candidate or not? Or, even simpler, are you still a student at UTSPH? By the way, you were actually a student at their Austin campus, not their main campus in Houston. Though that is an unimportant trivial point since the same school and an excellent one.

    And back to your MPH thesis. The Geier’s publish extensively on vaccine safety. You claim your MPH thesis was on vaccine safety with support from the Geiers. As I pointed out, it is your thesis, if it exists, so why on earth would you not want to even give its title? It would seem logical if you actually wrote a thesis, if it found problems with vaccine safety that you would want to use it. Given there are umpteen journals out there, why haven’t you tried to get it published?

    And I don’t believe GWU is part of any conspiracy. I tend not to subscribe to conspiracy theories. However, from colleagues who work there, it is there policy not to give out any information on students, period. Something I find strange; but more and more universities are adopting such a policy. Seems strange that anyone can go around claiming a degree from a university and some universities won’t even confirm or deny. Probably something to do with our overly litigious society. In any case, I’d still like to at least know the title of your MPH thesis. Claiming the Geiers might not approve is a bogus excuse. And if you found problems with vaccine safety, why not post it on your blog.

    By the way, listing yourself as the Editor of Autism Investigated is true; but misleading since, to the best of my knowledge, you are the owner of the site and only one who posts on it. Editor implies there is someone over you in decision powers.

    And I repeat that, given I don’t subscribe to paranoid delusions of vast conspiracy theories, in a nation of 300 million, there are loonies who latch on to various positions to excuse violence, especially given that we are a far more violent nation than many others. While I strongly, based on 50 years of education and experience, disagree with antivaccinationists, I think the vast majority are decent sincere individuals who mean well, love their children; albeit in my opinion misguided; but certainly not violent. So your claiming the man who assaulted Montanari was part of the “vaccine maffia” is an absurd statement. Do you now claim that he was on the payroll of some Pharmaceutical company and hired specifically to assault antivaccinationists? If so, please provide facts, not your fantasies. I deal in “facts.” In the musical play “Man of La Mancha” Don Quixote’s niece and parish priest catch up with him. The parish priest tells Don Quixote to fact the facts. Don Quixote responds with one of my all-time favorite quotes: “Facts are the enemy of truth!” In a musical comedy a delightful phrase; but not in the real world.

    One of many problems I find with antivaccinationists is their refusal to accept anything that doesn’t confirm their ideology. Many, as Barbara Loe Fisher, claim that provaccinationists believe vaccines work perfectly and never have side-effects, despite the overwhelming evidence, including CDC and FDA websites, Institute of Medicine reports, etc. that they do not confer perfect immunity, for some don’t even work, and do have numerous minor side-effects and rare serious ones. The world isn’t black and white, so based on my experience and education, the risks are far outweighed by the benefits. You are free to disagree; but don’t claim to be any type of scientist if you stick to all or none. So, imagine if you will that you are wrong about Wakefield or some other points. It doesn’t mean you are wrong about everything. However, given your refusal to admit error on anything, it is self-defeating because it shows an irrational unscientific approach.

    In any case, at the top you get my name right; but below you leave out the “s”. Please correct it and I love the photo you posted. It is 10 years old and I am now completely white and look substantially older. I like that photo.

    “Joel Harrion’s Selective Paranoia: A Summary”

    If you really want to develop into a real epidemiologist, I suggest you read carefully, not an easy book: Merwyn Susser “Causal Thinking in the Health Sciences: Concepts and Strategies in Epidemiology”. Oxford University Press, 1973. Many university libraries have copies and there are used copies available on Amazon or other online vendors. It is, in my opinion, the best book on the subject. I’ve read it several times.

    A second book, to be read after the above is: Kenneth J. Rothman (Ed). Causal Inference. Epidemiology Resources Inc. 1988.

    During my life I have take three graduate course in Philosophy of Science, basically “how we know things” and read many many articles on the subject.

    Well, hopefully you will post this comment and, perhaps, actually try to address one of more of my statements with a logical well thought out reply rather than catchy meaningless “rants.”

  5. J Harrison on July 3, 2018 at 7:45 pm said:

    It is your MPH thesis. In over 50 years of experience, I have NEVER heard of an MPH thesis or PhD dissertation that was not the property of the author. And NOT even giving its title? That is the height of absurdity.

    As for Litten, apparently he is incapable of thinking for himself, just cuts and pastes what others writes. Knowing people that were hospitalized for the flu, even if the vaccine were only 10% effective in preventing hospitalizations it would be worthwhile. And how does being only slightly better translate into “another failure.” Totally illogical; but expected.

    As for informed consent, people have both rights and responsibilities. Unfortunately, many Americans only recognized the “rights” half of the equation. In modern societies, especially urban environments, we have responsibilities. What would Litten think if someone with a highly infectious illnesses, instead of staying home, goes to work or sends their sick child to school? Well, many infectious diseases are contagious prior to being symptomatic, so one child could infect another without even knowing they are sick. And the other child could have an autoimmune disease, being undergoing chemotherapy for cancer, or several other things increasing their vulnerability. Of course, Litten probably could care less about other children and/or seniors; but I wonder how he would feel if his child or niece/nephew was infected by some kid recently returned from a trip abroad, especially if his family member needed hospitalization or, even worse, developed permanent disabilities or died. Or, perhaps, one of his parent or grandparents being infected by someone actively coughing and sneezing?

    As John Donne once wrote: “No man is an island.”

    Unfortunately, due to a combination of good hygiene, sanitation, nutrition, and vaccinations, people don’t see the vaccine-preventable suffering, disabilities, and deaths. I grew up seeing paraplegics from polio. Had several friends that were hospitalized for measles. And on and on it goes. Note that I don’t attribute the eradication of all vaccine-preventable diseases to only the vaccines. Most infectious diseases are multi-factorial!

    Again, back to your MPH thesis. The only reasons that would logically explain your reluctance to share it are that you never did one, graduated from the non-thesis MPH program at GWU, or got a barely passing grade on it. I understand your family is extremely wealthy. Perhaps, a contribution was made to GWU? There is NO other viable reason for your refusal.

  6. Hans Litten on July 4, 2018 at 8:56 am said:

    A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection (mass sterilisation via Gardakil by Merck Farben inc.)

    Pages 661-674 | Received 05 Aug 2017, Accepted 14 May 2018, Published online: 11 Jun 2018

  7. J Harrison on July 4, 2018 at 1:25 pm said:

    First, how in the world could just giving the title of your MPH thesis be unethical?
    Second, if you really did a thesis on vaccine safety, why would it upset the Geier’s for posting it online since they have done their best to undermine vaccinations, unless, unless, your thesis did NOT find serious problems with vaccine safety. Or, perhaps, since theses are often graded, yours got the lowest possible passing mark?

    And you are the absolute last person to talk about ethics. You posted the Google photo of Richard Demirjian’s home, his address, e-mail, and phone number and exhorted people to contact him. Not only that; but you released his son’s photo and FACEBOOK contact. That is harrassment and could be considered stalking. And you did it based on a lie. A lie using associated conditions from table in Wakefield’s 1998 paper; but it was the time from vaccination to first symptoms of autism that Demirjian challenged based on his kids medical records. Didn’t stop you from leaving a message, according to you, on his phone calling him a liar. Golly gee, phoning the home of a total stranger and calling him a liar and giving out contact information for his son, if that isn’t unethical, I don’t know what is. I guess your code of ethics is egocentric, whatever you do is ethical and what you don’t want to do is unethical. Kind of reminds me of President Richard Nixon when he actually said that “anything the President does is not illegal.” Which, of course , is NOT true!

    And you continue to attack people based on facts not in evidence. As I wrote in a previous comment, I approached ECBT and asked if they would be interested in posting articles written by me. At no time have I received any compensation nor been assigned a topic. I don’t have my own blog and for the few articles I write am not interested in learning how to maintain one, so, just as independent journalists send articles to media, I do the same.

    As for me contacting GWU to inquire about your MPH thesis, you make it out to be more than what many do. Over the years, I have gone to university libraries to look up thesis and dissertation in the same way I do journal articles. And I have found dissertations online databases and sometimes even paid for copies. You stated on this site that you wrote an MPH thesis on vaccine safety and I was curious to read it. Who knows, maybe you uncovered something new, something that won’t automatically change my mind; but contribute to me potentially re-evaluating things. As opposed to you, I go not assume god-like certainty and if enough valid information goes against any current opinion I have, an opinion based on extensive study, I may change my opinion partially or even totally.

    As for singling you out, absurd! You suffer from Delusions of Grandeur. And if you actually read my articles on ECBT and Science-Based Medicine you will see that I devoted far more time tearing apart works of others. I am currently suffering a bit of anxiety awaiting word if an article I wrote, not on vaccines, will be published and am also awaiting a friend going to Library of Congress to get me a few articles needed for my next paper, so, being an old man living alone, I’ve time on my hands and as I wrote in a comment you didn’t post, I have absolutely NO illusions that anything I write will change your mind; but such exchanges gives me more insight into how people like you “think” and practice putting down ideas that I may use in future articles.

    • Asking someone to scoop his unpublished research? Think about that.

      We’ve been through the Demirjians, the paper doesn’t contradict anything the father said. All their contact info was already online.

  8. J Harrison on July 4, 2018 at 4:54 pm said:

    It isn’t a question of where you found the Demirjian’s info. Maybe some other individuals could have found it on their own. You posted it, not once, not twice, but numerous times and exhorted people to contact them. That is harrassment. And you personally phoned and according to your own statement, left a message calling him a liar.

    And Wakefield’s paper specifically in a table gives 1 week for Child 11 from MMR vaccine to first symptoms of autism and Demirjian’s letter states it was several months. So how can Wakefield writing 1 week not contradict Demirjian’s months? Are you brain dead?

    And how can you be “scoop[ing] your own research? To scoop implies a third party releasing information without permission of the author. And, as I’ve written several times, most university libraries have ALL theses and dissertations. Isn’t what you write on this blog examples of your own research?

    Once more:

    1. Either you lied about writing an MPH thesis;
    2. Or the findings were not negative regarding vaccine safety;
    3. Or you received the lowest passing grade

    And how is giving just he title scooping anything?

    I’m really beginning to question if you actually graduated anywhere or, as research has shown, standards nowadays are much lower than when I was in school.

    • My thesis was a collaboration with others, not content for a blog.

      Richard Demirjian is a liar because he knows the paper is correct. Here is the actual table which you saw:

      Now you are a liar also.

    • Carol on July 12, 2018 at 1:47 am said:

      The table you mention in the Lancet paper does not give the interval between MMR and first symptom of autism. It gives the interval between exposure (in some cases MMR) and “first behavioural symptom.”

      The body’s response to infection (lethargy, sleepiness, etc.) Is called “sickness behavior.” From Father 11’s letter, we know that his son became sick after MMR (and stayed that way for weeks, iirc). Father 11’s letter draws a direct line from MMR through his son’s illness to his autism. The Lancet paper’s table is an accurate reflection of Father 11’s opinion.

      I won’t ask if you’re brain dead, but you should really know how that table is labelled by now.

  9. Someone on July 5, 2018 at 2:49 am said:

    I am so sorry, Jake, that you have to deal with such an unreasonable person. “Rant” appears to be a perfectly acceptable word to use to describe his posts. He keeps on trying to bait you for information regarding your thesis, as if you somehow owe this to him. Bizarre! Wishing you a blessed and fun 4th of July!

  10. Hans Litten on July 5, 2018 at 7:59 am said:

    Quite incredible to see the blatant criminality of the lamestream is Oz :
    (They quite unashamedly say we should be the using the relative risk measure !)

    Professor Del Mar’s claim is misleading.
    The source of Professor Del Mar’s claim is a systematic review of studies measuring the efficacy of flu vaccine in preventing the flu in healthy adults.

    That review found the flu vaccine decreased the rate of flu infection from 2.3 per cent to 0.9 per cent in healthy adults.

    Experts contacted by Fact Check said while this showed an absolute drop in the infection of 1.4 percentage points, using these numbers to talk about effectiveness was misleading.

    Professor Del Mar should instead have talked about the relative drop in infection, which is the effectiveness rate of the vaccine.

    The very study quoted by Professor Del Mar found that the flu vaccine had an estimated effectiveness rate of 59 per cent — not 1 to 2 per cent.

    That means for an individual who has been vaccinated, the risk of getting the flu is more than halved.

    This is supported by other studies cited by the Australian Department of Health’s Immunisation Handbook, which found similar effectiveness rates.

  11. Grace Green on July 5, 2018 at 10:23 am said:

    Jake, I haven’t bothered to read much of J. Harrisons “rants” in this thread. Where I did, I saw several typos (which he criticized you for), and false comments. For example, he disagreed that “facts are the enemy of truth”. Anyone who has studied language (in my case for 65 years!) knows that “facts” comes from the same root as “manufactured” or something made(up). Truth is something some of us believe in, as we can all see you do. I think Hans Litten had the best response to Mr. Harrison – just ignore him and post the truth, which shows that we are about to win this battle, having already won all the arguments. That’s what’s making the J. Harrisons of this world turn into nutcases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation