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 !<\/p>\n
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)..<\/p>\n
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<\/p>\n
Here is Jeff Childers Science Post Mortem …I believe and endorse every word of it !<\/p>\n
Pass it ON<\/p>\n
……………..<\/p>\n
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\u2019m going to write a little about the so-called \u201cpeer-review\u201d process. I have personal experience with the phenomenon, since I was forced to fight in court about studies that either were or weren\u2019t peer-reviewed.<\/p>\n
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\u2019T peer-reviewed?<\/p>\n
For a long while, judges were mostly deferring to peer review. But did that make any sense?\u00b9<\/p>\n
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\u2019 needs; always for a fee, euphemistically called \u201cgrants,\u201d which of course must be paid in advance.<\/p>\n
I didn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n
It was vexing.<\/p>\n
You can\u2019t believe how horrible most of the pro-mask studies were. Every time the NIH stuffed grant money into their mouths, fake scientists excreted another \u201cstudy\u201d purporting to \u201cprove\u201d that cut-up t-shirts somehow filtered a nanoscale virus and stopped transmission.<\/p>\n
In one study that was widely feted in corporate media and used against me in court, the \u201cscientists\u201d took a styrofoam head, stuck a plastic tube in its mouth, jetted air through the tube, and then measured the air velocity coming out \u2014 with and without a cotton mask strapped onto the dummy head.<\/p>\n
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!)<\/p>\n
The problem was, the moronic fakers only measured air velocity right in front of the dummy head. They \u2018forgot\u2019 to measure the air flowing UP, DOWN, and SIDEWAYS. They lied. The airflow wasn\u2019t \u201creduced.\u201d Of COURSE the air came out. It had to go somewhere! The masks didn\u2019t ABSORB the air! In other words, the masks didn\u2019t change the AMOUNT of air coming out; only its direction. And worse, masks didn\u2019t even reduce the expelled air\u2019s speed; although forward air velocity was reduced, the velocity to the sides, up and down was INCREASED when wearing a mask.<\/p>\n
Masks actually INCREASE the spread of viral particulate. But it passed peer review!<\/p>\n
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\u2019s 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\u2019s research project wasn\u2019t peer-reviewed, and therefore it was useless.<\/p>\n
Do the critics have a point?<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Specifically, Dr. Horton wrote:<\/p>\n
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability\u2014not the validity\u2014of a new finding\u2026We 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.
\nIn 2015, Dr. Horton even dared to criticize science itself, because the scientific literature \u2014 and he should know \u2014 has become UNRELIABLE:<\/p>\n
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.
\nBut why? In 2014 \u2014 well before the pandemic \u2014 Editor-in-Chief Horton admitted that \u201cJournals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.\u201d<\/p>\n
Isn\u2019t that interesting. Who would have ever thought.<\/p>\n
But HOW does the pharmaceutical industry launder false information through the journals? Harvard Medical School\u2019s 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 \u201cexperts.\u201d She said:<\/p>\n
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.
\nRead 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.<\/p>\n
She said it, not me. I\u2019m just a lawyer.<\/p>\n
But WHY is science broken? Dr. Marc Girard, a member of the editorial board of the journal \u2018Medicine Veritas,\u2019 explained that science is broken because of MONEY:<\/p>\n
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\u2014collecting money and spending it\u2014than to scientific imagination or creativity.
\nThe problem isn\u2019t new, either. Back in 2005, Dr. John Ionnidis \u2014 an early and important member of Team Reality who experienced censorship and cancellation firsthand \u2014 said \u201cMost scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth\u2026 Claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.\u201d<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a club. A well-paid club.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In the words, or lyrics, of my favorite covid artist, Dr. Doctor McHonkHonk:<\/p>\n
Science lies, mate
\nThat what its\u2019 always done, is doin\u2019, and always will do
\nIt\u2019s more dangerous than any disease
\nTime to rise, eh?
\nI\u2019d rather die while standing up than live on my knees
\nWe\u2019ve got to walk away now
\nIt\u2019s over.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not happy about any of this. It\u2019s not my new hobby to attack science or anything. But science needs to clean up its own house, and get out of our hair.<\/p>\n
Anyway, Twitter is better now because the heterodox scientific voices are back. Much better.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … Continue reading