Mr. Lundahl Fails to Properly Cite Yet Another Article, but It’s Old News Anyway
Kevin R. Henke
November 3, 2022
In Henke (2022bi), I made the following statements:
“Previously, I discussed the alchemy stories associated with Theophrastus Paracelsus in Henke (2022b) and Henke (2022bg). Lundahl (2022k) then makes some additional comments about Paracelsus and the Enlightenment:
“I do not need to believe Paracelsus had an actual contract with the devil, since that could be a misunderstanding on the part of his contemporaries, just as Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II, if I recall correctly) was considered as having made such a contract, because he was exceptionally using some not commonly used mathematical algorithms, probably no more diabolic than long division.
That there is in the Enlightenment era a story about his changing a copper penny into gold doesn't break this, since the Enlightenment era was (like Henke) obnoxiously negligent of distinctions about historicity and generally started to believe legends were a sort of fiction, to which one could obviously add.
However, it could be that the Küssdenpfennig legend should actually be classified as fake history (rather than entertaining fiction) : the owners of that house wanting to obliterate a memory of stingy rich people who "kissed each penny" like Uncle Scrooge, by claiming (falsely) it came from a "near miracle" by Paracelsus, done to sympathetic poor people.”
In this case, I at least agree with Lundahl (2022k) that there is no rational reason to believe any of these stories about Paracelsus or others having contracts with the devil. However, I’m the skeptic in this debate. It’s Mr. Lundahl that cannot separate cartoonish delusions (e.g., Genesis 3) from reality (e.g., an ancient Earth). I also do not automatically believe any story coming out of the Enlightenment. All stories must be verified with evidence, no matter if they are in today’s New York Times, recorded in the Enlightenment or found in the Bible. As I state in Henke (2022b), Henke (2022dv) and Henke (2022eu), the first reaction to any claim should be skepticism. Skepticism is the default position. This is why good evidence should always accompany a new claim. If the purveyors of a claim simply promise to provide evidence later or if they claim that large numbers of people already accept it as fact or that the “earliest known audience” believed it, it’s wise not to accept the claim until reliable evidence comes forward.”
Lundahl (2022v) then comments on my individual statements from Henke (2022bi) :
“Henke (2022bi): ‘I also do not automatically believe any story coming out of the Enlightenment.’
Lundahl (2022v): ‘He'll actually show off believing one ... here it is, with me answering after it:
Henke (2022bi): ‘All stories must be verified with evidence, no matter if they are in today’s New York Times, recorded in the Enlightenment or found in the Bible.”
Lundahl (2022v): ‘And a New York Times journalist believing a story to be true doesn't strike Henke as evidence? Is it a kind of disingenious forgetfulness of what news source he habitually trusts, or is it just a snide remark on how low he rates the journalists of NYT?
More presumably, he does actually consider, if a NYT journalist has found evidence, he presents a story, and if he hasn't, he doesn't. Unless it's for the issue of April 1st.’
And a New York Times journalist believing a story to be true doesn't strike Henke as evidence? Is it a kind of disingenious forgetfulness of what news source he habitually trusts, or is it just a snide remark on how low he rates the journalists of NYT?
More presumably, he does actually consider, if a NYT journalist has found evidence, he presents a story, and if he hasn't, he doesn't. Unless it's for the issue of April 1st.
That is basically my view on the "first known audience" - if such and such a journalist from NYT, published Tuesday 4th of August in 2022 has found institutionally believeable evidence that Putin's labs were producing a vaccine with viruses cultivated in human fetal cells from an abortion, that's why he publishes it.
He in turn also believed the "first known audience" - namely those participating in the actual work.
With interesting remarks on what was used before human fetal cells to cultivate viruses for vaccines.
But Henke may perhaps to this day doubt that Putin's pharmaceutical researchers were doing vaccine purposed cultivation of Corona-viruses in human fetal cells? There are some guys on the right who would applaud that. I do not (but then I never was a huge fan of Putin). [my emphasis, including the underlined date]
In Henke (2022jo), I previously commented on the unbolded first paragraphs from the above quotation from Lundahl (2022v), where Mr. Lundahl demonstrates that he’s using the wrong sources to obtain reliable (high-quality) evidence, especially in science and history. Instead of trusting summaries in the New York Times, other newspapers or Wikipedia, for science and history he should be going to any original peer-reviewed articles that might be referenced in those newspaper articles and websites (Henke 2022fq; Henke 2022gq).
There is definitely something wrong with Mr. Lundahl’s incomplete Tuesday, August 4, 2022, New York Times reference in Lundahl (2022v). August 4, 2022 was on a Thursday and not a Tuesday as Lundahl (2022v) claims. This is not the first time that Mr. Lundahl failed to properly cite references, as I discussed many times before in Henke (2022e), Henke (2022f), Henke (2022g), Henke (2022cj), and my other essays in this debate. After I searched the August 4, 2022 and August 4, 2021 issues of the New York Times, I could not find any articles on the Russians using the tissues of unborn children to produce a coronavirus vaccine. A Thursday August 4, 2022 New York Times article mentions that the monkeypox vaccine shortage was preventable, but again there’s no mention of the cells of unborn children being used or Russian labs being involved. The brief Tuesday August 4, 2020 New York Times article entitled “The Push to Create a Vaccine Leaps Forward” discusses that a vaccine for the coronavirus was being developed in Russia and other countries, but again there is no mention of the cells of unborn children being utilized. So, once more, Mr. Lundahl fails to properly reference his sources so that they and he can be checked.
The use of cells from aborted unborn children is nothing new and it’s not limited to Russia as seen, for example, in these two journal articles:
Fu, W., W. Wang, L. Yuan, Y. Lin, et al. 2021. “A SCID Mouse-Human Lung Xenograft Model of SARS-CoV-2 Infection”, Theranostics, v. 11, no. 13, pp. 6607-6615.
Stowers, P., T. Fonanilla, J. Elia, J. Salcedo, M. Tschann, B. Kaneshiro, and R. Soon. 2022. “Fetal Tissue Donation for Research at the Time of Abortion: A Qualitative Study of Individuals Who Experienced an Abortion in Hawaii in 2018-19” Contraception, v. 113, pp. 84-87.
By just relying on one article from somewhere in the New York Times, rather than reviewing the consensus in the peer-reviewed science journals, Mr. Lundahl again demonstrates that his ability to properly use and cite references and his idea of a reliable “first known audience” are totally inadequate.