Originally Posted by squealpiggy
It reminds me of this guy:
Yep, the anonymous confessional from a "paid internet shill" who wanted to "come clean" but not clean enough for anyone to be able to determine who it was, who they worked for and who they worked with. In other words not clean enough for anyone to be able to verify that they are who they say they are.
It's an argument from authority and it's a weak one because we have to take an anonymous commentor's word for it that they are who they say they are.
Nobody here would buy it if the post said they were a Nigerian prince. But they claim to be a doctor and furthermore one of the "inner circle" of vaccine developers (what is this, a Bond movie?) and spout the usual unsupported anti-vaccine claptrap and now we're supposed to take it at face value.
Real researchers publish and stake their professional reputations on their findings. If I want to find out the name of an author of a pro-vaccine study (or an anti-vaccine study for that matter) I can find them through pubmed and then search the faculty and find out where they're working. Apparently this anonymous warrior for true justice won't do this despite having retired.
I was actually buying into it until I realized the name of the site: Health Impact News. Clearly an "alternative" news site of sorts, which more or less means it pedals conspiracy theories.