This joke explains the hierarchy of scientific truth:
A mathematician once advised his students: "If you understand something and can prove it, then publish it in a mathematics journal. If you understand something, but can't prove it, then publish it in a physics journal. And if you don't understand something and can't prove it, then publish it in an engineering journal."
To this I would add: "And if you don't understand something and can't prove it and don't care anyway because you're just trying to make a fast buck, then publish it in a medical journal."
I just subscribed because not only do you have a mountain of information and a handy resource but you deserve the support for your impressive efforts and integrity. Best and much support from Australia.
I am exhausted and I haven't even been to the gym yet. This is like Fauci declaring he is "science" so the debate is over. I have never studied logic, never knew there was such a thing as logical fallacies before 2020, but I have always known when something, simply, stinks. Thanks Mike, awesome work and you have incredible patience with these clowns. And you are right, we should never stoop to their level. We must always rise above and seek the truth.
Corbett: "The question is how do we trust biotechnology when it's responsible for what's happened in the last three years and the HIV scam."
Stephen Frost: "Exactly."
McKernan:.. I don't view the Corman-Drosten... yes there's a lot of mistakes that happened with it. But now, since then, we've got over six million sequences that have been *inaudble* in hundreds of thousands of labs from all over the world, that all show... a similar association of this viral sequence with some non-described symptoms, I'll give you that. The symptoms of corona-viruses are not solely, unique finger prints for this particular virus: loss of smell and taste happens with other viruses. But one of the more decentralized observations that we actually have in science is six million genomes that have been sequenced in independent laboratories all over the world, all agreeing in what this sequence is.
How was that travelling through the population and also being associated with disease... everything I hear from the isolation people is that there is no isolation in the world that could ever be done to satisfy them. And I'm not convinced that *inaudible* ingredients or any ultracentrifugation that ** can do will be perfect either, because you gotta have a prion in there, a protein, you've gotta have something that you can always attack under Koch's postulates as not being pure, but the one thing I can give you is **** DNA sequence that someone in another country can actually replicate and put it in a cell and get the same proteins to come out and you can measure with a mass spec and know the *inaudible* proteins were made. But the isolation debate depends on *inaudible* them never being satisfied on a perfect isolation which I don't think you can ever get. The most informative bit of information that you can isolate is the sequence cause that can get replicated all over the world, thousands of places, and has been. *inaudible* an isolation of the sequence because that is the replication thing that you can... that science can replicate, but it appears to me that no one can replicate viral isolation, no one is satisfied with it, and I'm not even convinced that it is biologically meaningful, you've isolated this virion that you can't replicate anywhere else in the world and you don't know if it's actually pure in the process of you doing it, because the centrifugation techniques they use don't give you 100% virions."
Commentary:
There is a not very obvious appeal to authority and appeal to majority in this response.
But I wonder if yes-virus people like McKernan have realized the circular reasoning and the jumping to conclusions:
A) we assume there is a virus in nature
a.2) that produces the natural observation that a person gets infected with it
a.3) and produces these particular proteins
B) we have this sequence of letters, not taken from a full sequencing of the virus we assume is there,
b.1) but by ensambling different sequences from here and there
b.2) and we assume those bits belonged once to the same entity
b.3) and this sequence of letters we can use to create a chemical sequence of nucleotides
b.4) such that we can insert into a cell
b.5) in vitro, assuming that is equivalent to natural infection
b.6) and then the infected or transfected cell produces the same proteins
C) Therefore, because they are the same proteins
c.1) we confirm the virus we assumed in A)
c.2) and it is pathogenic in humans per b.4 and b.5
c.3) and we also imply the baseless affirmation that expressing proteins is the same thing as a systemic disease
c.4) and we have proved that we can by-pass normal analytic chemistry using partial computer sequencing of objects we don't know almost anything about
c.5) and this is all fine because most of the people in Brahmin caste say they believe it is fine
------------------------
The more I learn, the more astonishingly bad this is.
It's all hocus-pocus but the magicians actually believe their own tricks are real!!!
SARS-CoV-2, or a case of self-bamboozlement of millions of scientists.
Thanks for this, "Mikey"! Your explanation of the scientific method, and especially the explanation of what an independent variable and dependent variable is. That part has been confusing to me so far, and this really helped me envision the difference and the definitions.
Your tenacity is to be admired as well, and your clarity in returning to the question at hand instead of getting drawn into a mud-slinging contest. Bravo!
I just glanced over the article - Seems to be the same 'issues/points/conclusions' that happens for me when I have a 'long' conversation with people who can't let go of 'beliefs' and look directly at the 'science' in detail.
It may seem like you stand in a cesspit, but you stand in the truth as long as you don't accept the framing of deceits as anything worthy of engaging in.
The wisest path I feel, is to see the assertion or claim for existence as an offer, that you provisionally accept, subject to receiving supported answers to a list of reasonable questions that would then validate the claim. Without which the offer is left unsupported and of no substance as a basis in law.
If you make counterclaim, you present a claim that can be required to likewise be challenged or called to account - not just with clear questions that could be answered, but into every kind of trick, trap and burden on your time, energy and resources.
Likewise for all of us who are not only unconvinced of virology's basis and its offshoots such as vaccines - but are aware of many fraudulent claims. A sense of moral outrage can be quick to react in counter-claim that them initiated a 'battle of wills' or polarised defence against an enemy - which is unproductive and actually protects the issues for m being investigated due to the invested identity in an outcome.
I would encourage NOT to merely assert non- existence as if 'we are right and they are wrong' as if persisting the same position 'should win' when it becomes tedious or going over and over the same points. This means to integrate and expand our own sense of the issue in all of its many aspects by teaching it.
This also becomes an ongoing education that opens both personal understanding and appreciation as well as sharing and growing in a culture of worth. Otherwise we grow an anti-culture or identity that fixates on what we don't want as a basis to get what we think we want (ie self-vindication).
As for engaging with abuse, I feel that if people resort to such reactions and persist after some reflection or notification of it invalidity as a communication - then there is no relationship, and no call to answer or persist in a pretense that masks as communication in order to hijack the mind and replicate its 'thinking'. There's your 'virus'. We can be certain it is out there seeking to get us because we automatically project our own intentions to others, as if real if we still engage such manipulation and believe it real.
Contagion is a subset of communication - indeed a reception to transmission. This has been applied to ideas sin who knows when, and is akin to the idea of corruption. There is a realm of antecedence to the 'rational projection of virus particles' that is avoided within a science that has been trained to discard, downplay of dismiss Mind, the Psyche or Soul as a form of immunisation against communication unless it supports the current rules and filters of assertions running as 'self-evident reality'. So I would use 'the virus' issue as a means to look at our mind, our thinking and our emotionally invested identity. For this is where the error can be addressed or revealed to a shifted perception of self, life and world - which is each other.
The only area where I am thinking there might be a mutual misunderstanding is the issue of "one virus causing disease". If viruses were real and contagious (I realise these are the most important questions in this matter and if they are not proven then all the rest is invalid) an one virus infected a host then that one virus might be enough to cause symptoms of disease, because of the issue of replication.
I am not sure if Funky was suggesting that, as if he thinks one virus in an entire Human body could cause disease alone, then that is something so absurd as to beg for research to prove it.
This joke explains the hierarchy of scientific truth:
A mathematician once advised his students: "If you understand something and can prove it, then publish it in a mathematics journal. If you understand something, but can't prove it, then publish it in a physics journal. And if you don't understand something and can't prove it, then publish it in an engineering journal."
To this I would add: "And if you don't understand something and can't prove it and don't care anyway because you're just trying to make a fast buck, then publish it in a medical journal."
Mike I keep thinking it's a form of brain damage.
I just subscribed because not only do you have a mountain of information and a handy resource but you deserve the support for your impressive efforts and integrity. Best and much support from Australia.
I am exhausted and I haven't even been to the gym yet. This is like Fauci declaring he is "science" so the debate is over. I have never studied logic, never knew there was such a thing as logical fallacies before 2020, but I have always known when something, simply, stinks. Thanks Mike, awesome work and you have incredible patience with these clowns. And you are right, we should never stoop to their level. We must always rise above and seek the truth.
Inspired by this, I remember a response by Kevin McKernan to a question from Kevin Corbett:
go to 00:57:55
https://rumble.com/v1xzocv-q-and-a-after-kevin-mckernan-presentation.html
from late november 22
I transcribe:
Corbett: "The question is how do we trust biotechnology when it's responsible for what's happened in the last three years and the HIV scam."
Stephen Frost: "Exactly."
McKernan:.. I don't view the Corman-Drosten... yes there's a lot of mistakes that happened with it. But now, since then, we've got over six million sequences that have been *inaudble* in hundreds of thousands of labs from all over the world, that all show... a similar association of this viral sequence with some non-described symptoms, I'll give you that. The symptoms of corona-viruses are not solely, unique finger prints for this particular virus: loss of smell and taste happens with other viruses. But one of the more decentralized observations that we actually have in science is six million genomes that have been sequenced in independent laboratories all over the world, all agreeing in what this sequence is.
How was that travelling through the population and also being associated with disease... everything I hear from the isolation people is that there is no isolation in the world that could ever be done to satisfy them. And I'm not convinced that *inaudible* ingredients or any ultracentrifugation that ** can do will be perfect either, because you gotta have a prion in there, a protein, you've gotta have something that you can always attack under Koch's postulates as not being pure, but the one thing I can give you is **** DNA sequence that someone in another country can actually replicate and put it in a cell and get the same proteins to come out and you can measure with a mass spec and know the *inaudible* proteins were made. But the isolation debate depends on *inaudible* them never being satisfied on a perfect isolation which I don't think you can ever get. The most informative bit of information that you can isolate is the sequence cause that can get replicated all over the world, thousands of places, and has been. *inaudible* an isolation of the sequence because that is the replication thing that you can... that science can replicate, but it appears to me that no one can replicate viral isolation, no one is satisfied with it, and I'm not even convinced that it is biologically meaningful, you've isolated this virion that you can't replicate anywhere else in the world and you don't know if it's actually pure in the process of you doing it, because the centrifugation techniques they use don't give you 100% virions."
Commentary:
There is a not very obvious appeal to authority and appeal to majority in this response.
But I wonder if yes-virus people like McKernan have realized the circular reasoning and the jumping to conclusions:
A) we assume there is a virus in nature
a.2) that produces the natural observation that a person gets infected with it
a.3) and produces these particular proteins
B) we have this sequence of letters, not taken from a full sequencing of the virus we assume is there,
b.1) but by ensambling different sequences from here and there
b.2) and we assume those bits belonged once to the same entity
b.3) and this sequence of letters we can use to create a chemical sequence of nucleotides
b.4) such that we can insert into a cell
b.5) in vitro, assuming that is equivalent to natural infection
b.6) and then the infected or transfected cell produces the same proteins
C) Therefore, because they are the same proteins
c.1) we confirm the virus we assumed in A)
c.2) and it is pathogenic in humans per b.4 and b.5
c.3) and we also imply the baseless affirmation that expressing proteins is the same thing as a systemic disease
c.4) and we have proved that we can by-pass normal analytic chemistry using partial computer sequencing of objects we don't know almost anything about
c.5) and this is all fine because most of the people in Brahmin caste say they believe it is fine
------------------------
The more I learn, the more astonishingly bad this is.
It's all hocus-pocus but the magicians actually believe their own tricks are real!!!
SARS-CoV-2, or a case of self-bamboozlement of millions of scientists.
It reminds me of this short article by Walter Williams http://walterewilliams.com/educational-fraud/
People have superior education degrees that say they know things they have not learned!
Scientists really believe they know what they don't know.
How deep does this rabbit hole go?
Thanks for this, "Mikey"! Your explanation of the scientific method, and especially the explanation of what an independent variable and dependent variable is. That part has been confusing to me so far, and this really helped me envision the difference and the definitions.
Your tenacity is to be admired as well, and your clarity in returning to the question at hand instead of getting drawn into a mud-slinging contest. Bravo!
Here's my shortcut to : ("The Modern Science Of Virology For Dummies") *FREE
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/185684864_10225212294324677_2360399560384374653_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=bZLejkwDbvIAX_CauQN&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfBBkcAktUMoxPqln4Ryc0FmFGg3XbjcKmxykwTqkOh_vw&oe=64516740
I just glanced over the article - Seems to be the same 'issues/points/conclusions' that happens for me when I have a 'long' conversation with people who can't let go of 'beliefs' and look directly at the 'science' in detail.
It may seem like you stand in a cesspit, but you stand in the truth as long as you don't accept the framing of deceits as anything worthy of engaging in.
The wisest path I feel, is to see the assertion or claim for existence as an offer, that you provisionally accept, subject to receiving supported answers to a list of reasonable questions that would then validate the claim. Without which the offer is left unsupported and of no substance as a basis in law.
If you make counterclaim, you present a claim that can be required to likewise be challenged or called to account - not just with clear questions that could be answered, but into every kind of trick, trap and burden on your time, energy and resources.
Likewise for all of us who are not only unconvinced of virology's basis and its offshoots such as vaccines - but are aware of many fraudulent claims. A sense of moral outrage can be quick to react in counter-claim that them initiated a 'battle of wills' or polarised defence against an enemy - which is unproductive and actually protects the issues for m being investigated due to the invested identity in an outcome.
I would encourage NOT to merely assert non- existence as if 'we are right and they are wrong' as if persisting the same position 'should win' when it becomes tedious or going over and over the same points. This means to integrate and expand our own sense of the issue in all of its many aspects by teaching it.
This also becomes an ongoing education that opens both personal understanding and appreciation as well as sharing and growing in a culture of worth. Otherwise we grow an anti-culture or identity that fixates on what we don't want as a basis to get what we think we want (ie self-vindication).
As for engaging with abuse, I feel that if people resort to such reactions and persist after some reflection or notification of it invalidity as a communication - then there is no relationship, and no call to answer or persist in a pretense that masks as communication in order to hijack the mind and replicate its 'thinking'. There's your 'virus'. We can be certain it is out there seeking to get us because we automatically project our own intentions to others, as if real if we still engage such manipulation and believe it real.
Contagion is a subset of communication - indeed a reception to transmission. This has been applied to ideas sin who knows when, and is akin to the idea of corruption. There is a realm of antecedence to the 'rational projection of virus particles' that is avoided within a science that has been trained to discard, downplay of dismiss Mind, the Psyche or Soul as a form of immunisation against communication unless it supports the current rules and filters of assertions running as 'self-evident reality'. So I would use 'the virus' issue as a means to look at our mind, our thinking and our emotionally invested identity. For this is where the error can be addressed or revealed to a shifted perception of self, life and world - which is each other.
The only area where I am thinking there might be a mutual misunderstanding is the issue of "one virus causing disease". If viruses were real and contagious (I realise these are the most important questions in this matter and if they are not proven then all the rest is invalid) an one virus infected a host then that one virus might be enough to cause symptoms of disease, because of the issue of replication.
I am not sure if Funky was suggesting that, as if he thinks one virus in an entire Human body could cause disease alone, then that is something so absurd as to beg for research to prove it.
Excellent! "Get debunk outta my face!"
https://open.substack.com/pub/sinatana/p/breaking-bad?r=zickz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Soooooooo scripted, please my friends, please!