Someone asked me to explain what I mean when I say the studies are "not scientific", so I came up with a very simple way to explain it:
Let's say I want to know if yeast makes dough rise.
I would gather flour, salt, water and yeast. Mix them in a bowl, see if it rises. This is my control.
I would then use the exact same brand and amount of flour, same salt, same temp of water, the exact same bowl, the exact same everything, minus the f*cking yeast, mix them in a bowl and see if it rises. If it does rise, without the damn yeast, then it's not the yeast making the dough rise.
What I would not do is put flour, salt, water, dryer lint, cough syrup, candle wax and a chemical version of yeast into a blender to beat the hell out of it, then add dye and chloroform, then pour it into a couple cups, and whatever happens with that monstrosity is the answer to the question, "does yeast make dough rise?" (with no control group, of course). It is mind-numbingly stupid that we are supposed to pretend this nonsense is "Science". It isn't anything. It's like my kids, when they were little, playing with shampoos and measuring cups in the bath tub, then claiming they made "magic potions", and me playing along and saying, "Oh no! Be sure not to spill any! I don't want to turn into a sea otter!", when all along, all they did was dump $40 worth of their mothers hair products down the drain.
Btw, not related to anything, I noticed when I was looking at your awesome Twitter thread graphic, I glanced at the URL and saw that Substack is using Amazon Web Services. This could be problematic long term. AWS is who axed whatever Dan Bongino's social media platform was called, without warning, essentially destroying the platform he was attempting to build. And Bongino is tame compared to what we write about.
The intellectual dishonesty is stunning, but absolutely endemic throughout the population. And the borderline illiteracy…I don’t know how you can even follow their lines of “reasoning.” I feel a greater meeting of the minds with my cat then I ever could with that ilk.
Excellent review and overview Mike. Thank you. BTW, I do not get ANY notification comments on my Twitter (George Walker Bush - had that name since 2006, when I was calling out the war criminal). So I am not posting much, and not tagging you and other knowledgeable people (e.g., Christine Massey, Eric Coppolino, etc). Best
Mike, I love everything you say and it makes perfect sense. Virology is a scam; no question about it. I am a stickler for words, and there is one thing in your list of the scientific method that throws me every time I see it. Why is the word "alternative" used in front of the word "hypothesis"? Why is that word necessary? What am I missing?
Someone asked me to explain what I mean when I say the studies are "not scientific", so I came up with a very simple way to explain it:
Let's say I want to know if yeast makes dough rise.
I would gather flour, salt, water and yeast. Mix them in a bowl, see if it rises. This is my control.
I would then use the exact same brand and amount of flour, same salt, same temp of water, the exact same bowl, the exact same everything, minus the f*cking yeast, mix them in a bowl and see if it rises. If it does rise, without the damn yeast, then it's not the yeast making the dough rise.
What I would not do is put flour, salt, water, dryer lint, cough syrup, candle wax and a chemical version of yeast into a blender to beat the hell out of it, then add dye and chloroform, then pour it into a couple cups, and whatever happens with that monstrosity is the answer to the question, "does yeast make dough rise?" (with no control group, of course). It is mind-numbingly stupid that we are supposed to pretend this nonsense is "Science". It isn't anything. It's like my kids, when they were little, playing with shampoos and measuring cups in the bath tub, then claiming they made "magic potions", and me playing along and saying, "Oh no! Be sure not to spill any! I don't want to turn into a sea otter!", when all along, all they did was dump $40 worth of their mothers hair products down the drain.
Btw, not related to anything, I noticed when I was looking at your awesome Twitter thread graphic, I glanced at the URL and saw that Substack is using Amazon Web Services. This could be problematic long term. AWS is who axed whatever Dan Bongino's social media platform was called, without warning, essentially destroying the platform he was attempting to build. And Bongino is tame compared to what we write about.
Short definitions:
Science: let’s discuss about what we don’t know.
Pseudo-science: let’s write about what we don’t know in a way that looks as if we know.
The intellectual dishonesty is stunning, but absolutely endemic throughout the population. And the borderline illiteracy…I don’t know how you can even follow their lines of “reasoning.” I feel a greater meeting of the minds with my cat then I ever could with that ilk.
Ask a bridge builder to build one without the scientific method then ask those that don't believe in the scientific method to cross it.
Thank you for all your great work Mike.
Excellent review and overview Mike. Thank you. BTW, I do not get ANY notification comments on my Twitter (George Walker Bush - had that name since 2006, when I was calling out the war criminal). So I am not posting much, and not tagging you and other knowledgeable people (e.g., Christine Massey, Eric Coppolino, etc). Best
Mike, I love everything you say and it makes perfect sense. Virology is a scam; no question about it. I am a stickler for words, and there is one thing in your list of the scientific method that throws me every time I see it. Why is the word "alternative" used in front of the word "hypothesis"? Why is that word necessary? What am I missing?