by Patrick ➕follow (55) 💰tip ignore
Comments 1 - 24 of 24 Search these comments
Yes, but Covid is SUPPOSED to destroy America, that's the whole point. "Science" is just another credibility extraction tool for propaganda.
Independent Conversation with Special Guest Scott Atlas
How can we do a better job of fighting back the next time our ruling class tries to send us into crisis mode?
But no one is paying attention to the BLM grifters anymore, because now all of our lives are in danger from Fauci's murderous incompetence or corruption, or both.
The parasites running this show are getting very old
If the long term harms of the jab turn out to be obviously more severe than the mere tens out thousands dead so far, the powers that be are toast.
We live in interesting times.
The vaxx is simply garbage because it was rushed, not because it was created to be harmful. The parasites running this show are getting very old and they want to see their dreams achieved before they die, so they aren't going to stop just because this gene therapy kills a bunch of people while not doing what it's advertised to do. They'll just push more money into propaganda to cover it up and convince the people that everything's a-okay.
How could we reliably handle a big WMD attack if a fairly normal Hurricane in a routine landing location was botched, despite spending countless billions?
I think the ultimate problem is that the people in power don't give a shit about America. They spent those countless billions in ways that allowed them to skim, and not to actually save anyone's life.
The biggest shock amid the COVID-19 pandemic has been the discovery that the virus may have been released during an illegal collaboration on so-called ‘gain-of-function’ research between the US nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Recently revealed National Institutes of Health (NIH) documents show that American taxpayers directly subsidized this joint effort, despite a federal government ban on any experiment that might give pathogens the ability to leap species.
Even worse was that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak tried to shut down any debate on whether the coronavirus had been leaked from a lab by getting 27 prominent scientists to endorse a March 2020 letter to the medical journal Lancet. Yet one crucial detail was omitted from the correspondence: 26 of his 27 co-signatories also had connections to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.
While the layperson might find it fantastic that so many researchers could have been engaged in such cynical and destructive behavior, this has become the reality of a scientific profession full of deception, rank self-seeking, and even political manipulation.
In 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, co-director of Stanford University’s Meta-Research Innovation Center, published a comprehensive report showing that much of what for passes for ‘settled science’ in medicine, biology, economics, education research, and the social sciences generally cannot, in fact, be replicated. In other words, by the ultimate test of scientific validity – the ability to get the same result for the same experiment – a lot of what academics have said over the years isn’t true.
In 2015, Science magazine tried to replicate the findings of 100 articles published in three prominent psychological journals and found that only 36 had the predicted results. One year later, the Federal Reserve did its own study, which could not reproduce most outcomes of prominent economics articles they had picked for review. Ioannidis himself now believes that up to half of the discoveries ever published in peer-reviewed social science and medical journals are wrong, an opinion he shares with National Association of Scholars (NAS) president Peter Wood. One terrible result, says Wood, is that many of the regulations, laws, and programs routinely passed by Congress on the basis of supposedly solid research have no real scientific justification.
Giving phony research a scientific veneer, it turns out, is not all that hard, according to David Randall and Christopher Welser, co-authors of the ‘The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform.’ Typical methods include using unreliable statistical formulas, depending on sample sizes that are too small to be accurate, giving credence to small effects, and, most suspiciously of all, refusing to share one’s raw experimental data with colleagues.
To appreciate just how effectively such gimmickry can keep fooling the public, we need only refer to the 20th century’s best known and most influential scientific fraud, psychoanalysis. Building on the 1890s research of a Viennese doctor named Sigmund Freud, who claimed that emotionally disturbed patients experience symptom relief while sharing uncensored dreams and word associations, American doctors, therapists, and social scientists created an entire industry devoted to the interpretation of repressed desires, drives, and childhood fantasies. By the 1950s, the chair of psychiatry at every major U.S. medical school was occupied by a psychoanalyst.
It was not until the 1990s – a full century after Freud – that the exploding cost of health insurance coverage for emotional problems finally led to a more rigorous examination of psychoanalysis. The research that followed showed that nearly every psychological complaint could be treated far more quickly, effectively, and economically without psychoanalysis, a technique which turned out to be little more helpful than doing nothing at all.
In fairness, it should be said that not all, or perhaps even most, fake science is due to outright lying. Hoping to succeed after years of hard work, a researcher can easily be tempted either to unconsciously bias an experimental outcome or to frame the results in an overly optimistic way.
Cancer researchers seem especially prone to embellishing their findings, which is why we are always reading about some ‘laboratory breakthrough’ that a year or two later does not amount to much. A 2016 report by Kaiser Health News lamented that so many marginal cancer therapies are often described in the press as ‘incredible,’ ‘game changing,’ ‘miraculous,’ ‘revolutionary,’ ‘transformative,’ ‘lifesaving,’ ‘groundbreaking,’ or ‘a medical marvel.’
There also seems to be a strong psychological resistance among scientists and medical practitioners to challenging the thinking of their colleagues, no matter how outdated. As the Dartmouth Medical School documented in a series of controversial reports in the late 1980s, the best predictor of how any physician or medical researcher approaches some serious illness is local custom. In other words, he or she simply goes along with whatever similar professionals in the neighborhood are doing, regardless of how well or poorly regional health outcomes compare with other parts of the country.
And then there is the subtle but undeniable ideological pressure, which stems from the fact so much of modern scientific research is subsidized by left-leaning government bureaucrats and liberal foundations. This is not to suggest anything as blatantly corrupt as an explicit demand by funders that grant recipients reinforce certain political ideas. There is simply, as the late Irving Kristol first observed, a natural human tendency for public and private officials to support those academics whose findings confirm their own opinions, as well as a natural temptation for academics to tell their funders what they want to hear.
One result, well-documented for more than 25 years, is that any academic study that contradicts left-wing thinking has an especially difficult time getting the peer endorsements needed for publication. This is true even when the rejected paper is just as comprehensively researched as the more liberal papers commonly accepted by prestigious journals.
It is also not a coincide that attempts to prevent or disrupt academic symposia on how to improve research accuracy almost always seem to come from the left. Most recently, two graduate students set to speak at an Independent Institute conference on experimental irreproducibility were forced to withdraw out of concern for career sabotage by progressive colleagues, according to the organizers.
Between outright attempts to misrepresent scientific evidence, as seems to have been the case with the Wuhan-connected researchers, and the failure to compensate for more subtle biases, scientific corruption does not seem likely to end any time soon. For however prestigious their degrees, academics are no less susceptible to human weaknesses than anyone else. In the end, the closest we can ever get to a dependable truth lies somewhere between common sense and dogged double-checking.
By Lewis M. Andrews
OUCH! Richard Ebright and 15 Top Scientists Eviscerate Fauci and Daszak in Lancet Medical Journal
By Richard Abelson
Published September 20, 2021 at 9:59am
... Ebright and collegaues also skewered Fauci’s stooges for placing “unity” and their political agenda over critical evaluation and science:
“As scientists, we need to evaluate all hypotheses on a rational basis, and to weigh their likelihood based on facts and evidence, devoid of speculation concerning possible political impacts. Contrary to the first letter published in The Lancet … we do not think that scientists should promote “unity” (“We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture”).
As shown above, research-related hypotheses are not misinformation and conjecture. More importantly, science embraces alternative hypotheses, contradictory arguments, verification, refutability, and controversy. Departing from this principle risks establishing dogmas, abandoning the essence of science, and, even worse, paving the way for conspiracy theories. Instead, the scientific community should bring this debate to a place where it belongs: the columns of scientific journals.”
It is hard to imagine how Fauci, Daszak, Farrar and their co-conspirators can remain in their positions after this brutal scientific takedown.
Tue Nov 16, 2021 - 3:54 pm EST
(LifeSiteNews) – Top COVID expert Dr. Peter McCullough has some explosive news regarding the experimental ‘vaccines’ and how the medical establishment is refusing to show the truth about them.
On today’s episode of The John-Henry Westen Show, he announced that he’s launching a lawsuit against a medical journal that removed scientific papers proving that there are major risks for children, and others, who receive the COVID jabs.
According to McCullough, the journal, “Elsevier,” originally published the study, but scrubbed it just days before the FDA met to discuss approval for the injections to 5-11 year olds.
“This is an overt act of censorship,” he said. “We will be launching a full scale lawsuit against Elsevier, and its going to be for breach of contract.”
But why did they hide the papers from the public and the scientific community?
Dr. McCullough pointed out that these studies prove that the jabs cause severe injury to children and people of nearly every age group.
“The most notable finding is that this myocarditis heart inflammation that occurs typically on the second shot after either Pfizer or Moderna, it is explosive and it happens within a few days of the second shot.”
Lawrence Krauss: Why the easily offended are a threat to scientific progress
The mantras of diversity, inclusion and anti-racism are placing feelings above academic freedom
Author of the article:Lawrence M. Krauss, Special to National Post
Publishing date:Dec 05, 2021
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,191,747 comments by 13,863 users - Patrick online now