How can good people say they stand on principle when supporting David Jacobs where he is very cleanly (sic) recorded (or readily admits himself), it would seem, (1), purloining soiled underwear he later reports is _not_ collected for residue testing due to lack of funds and an unwillingness of a scientific body to examine them pro bono, (2), leading his "research" subjects by the nose, recalling them to one another, and polluting the data pool making them known to one another, presumably assuring a consistent personal narrative, (3), suggests to a (by all accounts) healthy subject in a highly suggestible state that she has a dangerously serious psychiatric pathology requiring psychotropic drugs and massive psychiatric care, (4), jettisoning research subjects to their own devices when it has been determined that they are no longer useful in the pursuit of the "doctor's" pecuniary control agenda, (5), thinly threatens research subjects with exposure if they don't play along, (6), does nothing to stem the slanders and character disparagements of his cast-off and protesting subjects by a worldwide audience of lap-dog fanboys and fawning lick-spittles, (7), disingenuously uses Temple University stationery to suggest collegiate legitimacy, (8) suggests she wear a medieval torture devise he would provide and (9), can pretend not to acknowledge any of the preceding secure in the fact that he has the uncritical support of the good people alluded to at the start?
http://www.futuretheater.com/2015/10/12/brewer-lehmberg-268/
No comments:
Post a Comment