Most “Scientists” of ALL Ilks..from Virologists to Climatologists are Prostitutes. …IF they have been “sponsored by Government or Vested Interested Corporations or “Regulatory” bodies…THEY are Prostitutes and Pimps !

In other words “THE SCIENCE” is Full of Shit…This incudes Many Paleontologists ….ie …the Big Bang ! etc and so forth..and Darwinists ( Natural Selection is BULLSHIT TOO)..

Coming from a “Science Based” background I have been like most of us a true believer in the Science but have become completely Jaded from this whole Covid Episode

Here is Jeff Childers Science Post Mortem …I believe and endorse every word of it !

Pass it ON


To celebrate the release from Twitter jail of Doctor McCullough, the most-cited and most censored covid doctor in the world, and Dr. Malone, the actual inventor of mRNA tech, I’m going to write a little about the so-called “peer-review” process. I have personal experience with the phenomenon, since I was forced to fight in court about studies that either were or weren’t peer-reviewed.

The whole process was a painful ordeal. What should a judge do with claims that studies are better or worse because of peer review? Is one mask study better because it IS peer-reviewed? Should another mask study be completely ignored because it WASN’T peer-reviewed?

For a long while, judges were mostly deferring to peer review. But did that make any sense?¹

On this blog I have often alleged there are many scientists who are not scientists at all, but prostitutes, white-coated pretenders servicing big government and big pharma, happily supplying studies to satisfy eager institutional customers’ needs; always for a fee, euphemistically called “grants,” which of course must be paid in advance.

I didn’t just read that somewhere. I watched it happen with my own eyes, in real time. There were zero covid mask studies when I started litigating the mandates. Then the studies started coming out. We carefully reviewed every single one. None of the real studies could get peer-reviewed. Only the garbage, fake pro-mask studies showed up peer-reviewed in the journals.

It was vexing.

You can’t believe how horrible most of the pro-mask studies were. Every time the NIH stuffed grant money into their mouths, fake scientists excreted another “study” purporting to “prove” that cut-up t-shirts somehow filtered a nanoscale virus and stopped transmission.

In one study that was widely feted in corporate media and used against me in court, the “scientists” took a styrofoam head, stuck a plastic tube in its mouth, jetted air through the tube, and then measured the air velocity coming out — with and without a cotton mask strapped onto the dummy head.

Because they found air velocity reduced with a cotton mask on, the scientists, employing a tortured chain of reasoning comparable to an excited teenager arguing for a later curfew, concluded that masks must also reduce covid spread BECAUSE the cotton mask reduced the amount of expelled air. (Two masks reduced it even more!)

The problem was, the moronic fakers only measured air velocity right in front of the dummy head. They ‘forgot’ to measure the air flowing UP, DOWN, and SIDEWAYS. They lied. The airflow wasn’t “reduced.” Of COURSE the air came out. It had to go somewhere! The masks didn’t ABSORB the air! In other words, the masks didn’t change the AMOUNT of air coming out; only its direction. And worse, masks didn’t even reduce the expelled air’s speed; although forward air velocity was reduced, the velocity to the sides, up and down was INCREASED when wearing a mask.

Masks actually INCREASE the spread of viral particulate. But it passed peer review!

Allegedly, peer-review is a quality certification process. Studies are ranked and rated whether they have been reviewed and blessed by an anonymous panel of scientists in the same discipline. That’s supposed to be how to tell if the study is any good. Recently, for example, the State of Florida studied its medical data, finding jabs increased myocarditis in young people under 40. Critics whined that Florida’s research project wasn’t peer-reviewed, and therefore it was useless.

Do the critics have a point?

Probably not, according to Lancet editor-in-chief Richard Horton, who in a brief flash of honesty said out loud what a lot of other scientists have been thinking for a long time. That is: peer review is not in fact a quality control; it is just a way for establishment scientists to police and enforce orthodox narratives.

Specifically, Dr. Horton wrote:

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding…We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
In 2015, Dr. Horton even dared to criticize science itself, because the scientific literature — and he should know — has become UNRELIABLE:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.
But why? In 2014 — well before the pandemic — Editor-in-Chief Horton admitted that “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”

Isn’t that interesting. Who would have ever thought.

But HOW does the pharmaceutical industry launder false information through the journals? Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell was the Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years. After twenty years of editing and publishing scientific papers, she has become deeply skeptical, not only about peer-review, but about the entire process of journals and even about “experts.” She said:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
Read that again. The former chief editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said it is NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF EXPERTS.

She said it, not me. I’m just a lawyer.

But WHY is science broken? Dr. Marc Girard, a member of the editorial board of the journal ‘Medicine Veritas,’ explained that science is broken because of MONEY:

The reason for this disaster is too clear: the power of money. In academic institutions, the current dynamics of research is more favourable to the ability of getting grants—collecting money and spending it—than to scientific imagination or creativity.
The problem isn’t new, either. Back in 2005, Dr. John Ionnidis — an early and important member of Team Reality who experienced censorship and cancellation firsthand — said “Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth… Claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”

It’s a club. A well-paid club.

The point is, all these criticisms of science and peer-review were well-known within the scientific community long before the pandemic hit. But those lying liars gaslit us, and told us WE were crazy for not blindly relying on their feckless, brokered opinions and judgments. Opinions and judgments which quickly turned out to be wildly wrong, not that any of them are admitting it.

In the words, or lyrics, of my favorite covid artist, Dr. Doctor McHonkHonk:

Science lies, mate
That what its’ always done, is doin’, and always will do
It’s more dangerous than any disease
Time to rise, eh?
I’d rather die while standing up than live on my knees
We’ve got to walk away now
It’s over.

I’m not happy about any of this. It’s not my new hobby to attack science or anything. But science needs to clean up its own house, and get out of our hair.

Anyway, Twitter is better now because the heterodox scientific voices are back. Much better.