Science is Not a Religion

Don't Trust Scientism or PharmaScience

"close your eyes and open your mouth" is no basis for public health policy

demanding real transparency into the data on vaccines is critical. let the sunshine in.

By el gato malo

open your mouth and close you eyes and you will get a big surprise!”

we all remember this game from childhood.

we all also likely remember some kids you would never, ever want to play this game with.

what if the FDA has become that kid?

is it really so far fetched given their behavior in the last 2 years?

aaron siri sums this up beautifully HERE.

“The FDA repeatedly promised “full transparency” with regard to Covid-19 vaccines, including reaffirming “the FDA’s commitment to transparency” when licensing Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.  

Transparency regarding this product means, if nothing else, sharing the data the FDA relied upon to license this vaccine.  The definition of “transparency” literally includes “accessibility of information.”  So, when the FDA denies a request to expedite release of this data from a group of highly credentialed scientists from major universities across the country, is that transparency? 

If the FDA is committed to transparency, why must a federal lawsuit be filed to timely obtain this data?   Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data?  Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.””

public health should be, well, public, shouldn’t it?

we’ve seen this time and time again all year. some data is sourced, manipulated, analyzed, and possibly outright made up in some quiet cloister somewhere. it gets called “peer reviewed” by 3 likeminded or outright conflicted friendlies, 2 schoolchildren, and their tame mouse “mr whiskers” and then gets passed off to a credulous public as if this is how science is done and as if “peer review” means “proven.”

…peer review” has become the most misused phrase in all of science. peer review is not supposed to be friendly. it’s supposed to be rigorous. it should not be hidden. it should be open.

it is also not the finish line, it’s the STARTING line. it means, “hey, have a look at this it seems interesting and passes the initial sniff test. come tear at it, come try to replicate it.”

anyone pushing “peer reviewed” as validation of conclusions is either seeking to dissemble or is a scientific illiterate. yes, 99% of american media, i’m looking at you…

…FDA moves the goalposts to approve remdesivir, a drug that does not work and has failed to replicate benefit in later studies. (MORE)

…at the same time, they engage in an unprecedented smear campaign against ivermectin, a drug that DOES work and whose safety is excellent. they literally tried to call a drug taken by over a billion (with a b) people and that won the creators the nobel prize a “veterinary drug” because it’s also used in horses. i mean, so is penicillin. so what? amusingly, the CDC mandates its use on immigrants to the the US.

the drug companies clearly ran iffy trials. the pfizer data was more glamorshot selfie than rigorous study.

they used definitions for “vaccinated” that lumped issues caused by the vaccines into the unvaxxed cohorts.

they used definitions of “efficacy” that failed to take into account absolute risk reduction.

and they have systematically avoided real risk reward calculations and to hide and minimize adverse events.

they used absurdly thin data to go after the youth approvals.

"close your eyes and open your mouth" is no basis for public health policy

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine protection and deaths among US veterans during 2021

STUDY: After 6 mos. Moderna vaccine effectiveness  drops to 60%.

Pfizer drops to 49%.

J&J: 13%.

Last yr, FDA's Dr. Hahn said FDA wouldn't authorize vaccines that weren't at least 50% effective--and that was a very low bar to begin with.

And yet Biden vaccine mandate mistakenly considers those vaccinated more than 6 mos. ago to be protected, and the naturally-immune unprotected.

#Unscientific. Biden Science

Do masks work?

No possible way says filtration expert Tyson Gabriel. He'd bet the farm on it.

by Steve Kirsch

COVID Science: 2 Just Wear a Mask or You'll Kill Grandma v2

…The bottom line is Fauci was sort of right when he was originally asked about masks and he replied they are “useless, but if it makes you feel better, you can wear them.”

They are actually detrimental, especially for kids, because they trap bacteria and you then breath in that bacteria resulting in an increase in respiratory infections.

…the CDC says masks don’t work for wildfire smoke and the virus is 25X smaller than a smoke particle. So it’s like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence….

…Today we adjust the science to match what the CDC says… In the Biden era, the narrative drives the science.

…People obey the CDC advice without questioning the science.

Dr Sircus: Let The Children Breathe – Breathing in Excessive CO2 & Hypercapnia

Over the oxygen supply of the body carbon
dioxide spreads its protecting wings.
Friedrich Miescher
Swiss physiologist, 1885

How we educate America that the vaccines are dangerous

Here's the strategy...

by Steve Kirsch

We have about 50 interesting people… doctors, athletes, pharmacists, victims, parents of victims, statisticians, etc.

Each person has a story.

We make a series of 2 minute videos.

Each video starts off with the person introducing him/herself and then saying their unique viewpoint.

All videos end with telling the viewer that it’s important that you get all the facts before you decide because you can’t reverse this decision. Direct people to the vacsafety.org website to hear both sides. And we have two 15 minute videos, one from the pro side, the other from the con side.

How we educate America that the vaccines are dangerous

Pharmaceutical Abuse of the Public Justified via Junk PharmaScience: The Death Letter

“PharmaScience” is the new Tobacco Science

In 2015, in my my book “Cures vs. Profits”, I coined the phrase “Science-Like Activities” to refer to actions and behaviors that seem, on the surface, to be Science but that were, in fact, not. Since then, millions have read my blog articles on http://jameslyonsweiler.com and watched episodes of my podcast Unbreaking Science. In both of these outlets, I have endeavored to inform the public that the tobacco science that kept people smoking and dying well after the tobacco industry knew that smoking caused cancer is now used - routinely and pervasively - to trick the public into believing that pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, are safe and effective.

The opioid epidemic has many culprits: the families that own the companies, the companies, the over-prescribing doctors, and the pharmacists who have turned a blind eye. The US government worked to insure a steady, cheap supply of opium using the military to take, hold and manage the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

…the mass of literature citing an analysis of real-world data to mischaracterize the risk of opioid addiction and abuse were amplified by companies marketing opioids to prescribers, including by stating or implying that opioids were rarely addictive, or to blame the patients by claiming that only those who had prior abuse problem were at risk of addiction, are all tools used in the marketing of opioids to physicians, and through them, their patients.

…Of course allopathic medicine can manage “safe opioid use”, right?

Just how many thousands, hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of people may have been killed by opioid addiction due to this letter? From 1999-2019, the death toll is staggering: on average, 15,000 overdoses are still occurring from prescribed opioids. Add in the fact that addiction to pharmaceutical opioids is a gateway process to other opioids and to street drugs, and we can see the epidemic was truly taking off just before COVID-19.

…The toll of PharmaScience on us only begins with opioids. Vioxx, which was touted as safe & effective, led to over 140,000 heart attacks and 60,000 deaths. It was PharmaScience that misled the public on Vioxx.

The abuses of the public trust by pharmaceutical companies who pump pharmadrugs into the population and then add more pharmadrugs to deal with the side effects of drugs are evident across the practices of medicine. Healthcare “maintenance” means steady-state prescriptions and the growth model of allopathic medicine means overprescription of pharmadrugs targeting symptoms from pharmadrugs. Health and wellness does not come in the form of a pill. Just how many more have been hurt or killed by other pharmaceuticals?

Yet half the use US still trusts these criminal with injections?

The US has its priorities in the wrong place. I’m going to make a claim that will rock skeptics to the core: far more people die from pharmaceuticals every year than from COVID-19. How can this be?

When the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths are adjusted for the PCR false-positive rate (as high as 91%), and when the data on cases in the vaccinated and unvaccinated are analyzed appropriately by compared “exposed to COVID-19 vaccine” vs. “unexposed”*, instead of using CDC’s bizarre definition of “fully vaccinated” (those who survive five weeks after the first exposure and two weeks after the second dose), far more people die just from opioid overdose than from COVID-19.

Yet we are tearing society apart over who is accepting pharmaceuticals - and who is rejecting them.

“PharmaScience” is the new Tobacco Science. When you think of Science, please don’t confuse PharmaScience with Science. That demarcation is abundantly obvious even to people who are not card-carrying scientists like myself.

Pharmaceutical Abuse of the Public Justified via Junk PharmaScience: The Death Letter

"Rare" Breakthrough Cases

Dr. Paul Saladino

Under no circumstances should you question my statement…

Or do your own research...

Because I’m the expert here, the science is settled, and we have a consensus.

If I actually said that, you wouldn’t be out of line to call me condescending, insulting and perhaps infuriating…

But that’s essentially what the mainstream media has been doing with regards to COVID-19, climate change and even nutrition.

Check out this article to see what I mean:

You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science

“Research both sides and make up your own mind.” It’s simple, straightforward, common sense advice. And when it comes to issues like vaccinations, climate change, and the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it can be dangerous, destructive, and even deadly. The techniques that most of us use to navigate most of our decisions in life — gathering information, evaluating it based on what we know, and choosing a course of action — can lead to spectacular failures when it comes to a scientific matter.

The reason is simple: most of us, even those of us who are scientists ourselves, lack the relevant scientific expertise needed to adequately evaluate that research on our own. In our own fields, we are aware of the full suite of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit together, and what the frontiers of our knowledge is. When laypersons espouse opinions on those matters, it’s immediately clear to us where the gaps in their understanding are and where they’ve misled themselves in their reasoning. When they take up the arguments of a contrarian scientist, we recognize what they’re overlooking, misinterpreting, or omitting. Unless we start valuing the actual expertise that legitimate experts have spent lifetimes developing, “doing our own research” could lead to immeasurable, unnecessary suffering.

“Research both sides and make up your own mind.” It’s simple, straightforward, common sense advice. And when it comes to issues like vaccinations, climate change, and the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it can be dangerous, destructive, and even deadly. The techniques that most of us use to navigate most of our decisions in life — gathering information, evaluating it based on what we know, and choosing a course of action — can lead to spectacular failures when it comes to a scientific matter.

The reason is simple: most of us, even those of us who are scientists ourselves, lack the relevant scientific expertise needed to adequately evaluate that research on our own. In our own fields, we are aware of the full suite of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit together, and what the frontiers of our knowledge is. When laypersons espouse opinions on those matters, it’s immediately clear to us where the gaps in their understanding are and where they’ve misled themselves in their reasoning. When they take up the arguments of a contrarian scientist, we recognize what they’re overlooking, misinterpreting, or omitting. Unless we start valuing the actual expertise that legitimate experts have spent lifetimes developing, “doing our own research” could lead to immeasurable, unnecessary suffering.

There’s an old saying that I’ve grown quite fond of recently: you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. When most of us “research” an issue, what we are actually doing is:

• formulating an initial opinion the first time we hear about something,

• evaluating everything we encounter after that through that lens of our gut instinct,

• finding reasons to think positively about the portions of the narrative that support or justify our initial opinion,

• and finding reasons to discount or otherwise dismiss the portions that detract from it.

…Of course, that’s not what we think we’re doing. We think of ourselves as the heroes of our stories: cutting through misinformation and digging up the real truth on the matter. We think that, just by applying our brainpower and our critical reasoning skills, we can discern whose expert opinions are trustworthy and responsible. We think that we can see through who’s a charlatan and a fraud, and we can tell what’s safe and effective from what’s dangerous and ineffective.

Except, for almost all of us, we can’t. Even those of us with excellent critical thinking skills and lots of experience trying to dig up the truth behind a variety of claims are lacking one important asset: the scientific expertise necessary to understand any finds or claims in the context of the full state of knowledge of your field. It’s part of why scientific consensus is so remarkably valuable: it only exists when the overwhelming majority of qualified professionals all hold the same consistent professional opinion. It truly is one of the most important and valuable types of expertise that humanity has ever developed.

But only if we listen to it. It’s absolutely foolish to think that you, a non-expert who lacks the very scientific expertise necessary to evaluate the claims of experts, are going to do a better job than the actual, bona fide experts of separating truth from fiction or fraud. When we “do the research for ourselves,” we almost always wind up digging in deeper to our own knee-jerk positions, rather than deferring to the professional opinions of the consensus of experts.

Don’t Think For Yourself, Believe These Lies

Brought to you by Pfizer, the World Economic Forum and Vanguard

When left to their own devices, a substantial fraction of people will choose not to fully vaccinate themselves or their children. In some schools, up to 60% of children can be unvaccinated against preventable diseases such as measles, leading to a resurgence of diseases that should be eradicated. Many parents have a greater fear of adverse consequences from vaccines, despite the fact that — other than skin irritation at the injection sites — medical complications are extraordinarily rare (occurring in far less than 0.01% of patients) and occur no more frequently than random chance would indicate.

Then it goes on and on about flattening the curve and listening to Fauci, stay home, wear a mask and don’t question the narrative.

Don’t Trust the Scientism

‘Trust the science’ and ‘the science is settled’ are b*llshit statements when anyone who holds an alternative opinion is censored and deemed a ‘spreader of misinformation’.

And this includes experts in these fields…

There are many virologists, vaccine scientists and epidemiologists who aren’t allowed within 100 miles of the mainstream media or social media channels because they disagree with the mainstream narrative.

So it’s very convenient to say you have a consensus on climate change or COVID-19 when you won’t let anyone who disagrees voice an opinion…

But when you can no longer question science then it isn’t science anymore, it’s ideology.

And whilst ideologies can be followed and trusted, science cannot. 

Because science is a method of inquiry...

And we should welcome it being challenged because that is how we improve our scientific understanding.

It is so vitally important that we can ask questions and speak freely…

Just look at the mainstream nutrition paradigm as an example:

They told us to avoid red meat… replace animal fats with seed oils… and follow the food pyramid.

And questioning that narrative has allowed millions of people to find true health and escape a lifetime of suffering.

There always has been and always will be political, corporate and financial interference in scientific narratives, including COVID-19, nutrition and climate change.

That’s why I believe it is really important that you do your own research and think for yourself…

And I welcome anyone who challenges or questions my opinions too.

Don’t trust, verify.