The Australian pundit Liam starts off saying this, actually a bad step for him to take, as it is a mis-step and very wrong, as will be shown, as was shown, and is always shown. His launch pad is this: "Deciphering evidence is really hard work; scientists spend much of their time arguing over what a piece of data really means."
How much of that is true? Any part is sometimes true, more often each part is not true. And the aggregates in that one sentence, the same way. Most evidence is deciphered instantly, easily. We easily see that an elephant weighs more than a gazelle, that is a scientific finding, just from afar on a safari into the veld. Most science evidence is like that: observation made clearly, honestly, accurately.
We easily see that someone is sick, or that they are well. We use memory and records to keep track of concidences and timings, in those we easily see patterns: we take a pain reliever pill and the headache, per memory of when we took the pill, and what the pain was then, we mark off when the relief occured, and older memory informs us that in prior headaches the pain continued for longer or in continuing level. We have then made a proper scientific medical finding, useful, honest accurate.
Is that science? Yes. Is that "scientific": yes too. Are we then scientists: of course! Science is not by certificate or paycheck, or professional title. It is by truthful observation and consideration.
In this era there is much pretension in science. And it is killing, genocidal. There is much pretending in science and medicine. In medicine, pretending is actually a large part of the art of human relations in the practise of caregiving. Much pretending MUST go on, for wounds and diseases and disorders are often bleak, unrelenting, terrible upon terrible. Yet the mind of the afflicted is powerful and most powerful when in a "positive" or happy mindset. So a medical caregiver, a wise one, must include pretending as a major part of the art. There are ways of pretending which are not dishonest, which do not involve falsehoods, but which bring in hope, or redirect the awareness elsewhere to other points of mental focus.
Yet that necessary and valued art of medical pretending is like so many other aspects of culture and social habit today: intensely perverted, and harming. I make this as a scientific observation.
The great physicist and teacher of physics Feynman did science with a styrofoam coffee cup, hot and cold water and a rubber o-ring. His lessons were obvious in simple demonstration. Obvious to even the untrained, unlearned in science. Yet they upended years of hard, professional science and engineering: hard in this case meaning firmly established, set in detailed procedure, excruriatingly difficult to practise, like the type of "science" that Liam and so so many others hold to as the gold standard in medicine in this era.
Professor Feynman was addressing a tragic failure of such inscrutable to the layman, institutionalized science: the loss of all aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger, back in January of 1986. Sadly the full import of his lesson was not taken up into the cultures, the culture of science, and especially not the culture of bio-technology and medicine.
Science is knowable, and easily knowable to all who seek it.
Very nicely done. I would love to see Mannix respond. Not because I would necessarily expect he has anything worthwhile to say, but a fool can hope. In any event, the long term absence of worthy opponents is really frustrating.
I did a literature review of Echinacea, and the Cochrane meta-analysis was an outlier in criticality. Their exclusion criteria were so broad, their conclusions just didn't match the in vitro and clinical trials data.
And now we are running a clinical trial using Ivermectin and lactoferrin to shrink multiple tumors, it works for many and is the last hope for some due to resistance by the tumor to chemotherapy.
We are using regression analysis to test the findings. Cochrane would probably exclude this study entirely. The survivors have a different view, with improvements showing within weeks for many, and verified by PSA levels.
A Prostate Community Trial
A message to the medical community from A. M. Gonzalez
The Australian pundit Liam starts off saying this, actually a bad step for him to take, as it is a mis-step and very wrong, as will be shown, as was shown, and is always shown. His launch pad is this: "Deciphering evidence is really hard work; scientists spend much of their time arguing over what a piece of data really means."
How much of that is true? Any part is sometimes true, more often each part is not true. And the aggregates in that one sentence, the same way. Most evidence is deciphered instantly, easily. We easily see that an elephant weighs more than a gazelle, that is a scientific finding, just from afar on a safari into the veld. Most science evidence is like that: observation made clearly, honestly, accurately.
We easily see that someone is sick, or that they are well. We use memory and records to keep track of concidences and timings, in those we easily see patterns: we take a pain reliever pill and the headache, per memory of when we took the pill, and what the pain was then, we mark off when the relief occured, and older memory informs us that in prior headaches the pain continued for longer or in continuing level. We have then made a proper scientific medical finding, useful, honest accurate.
Is that science? Yes. Is that "scientific": yes too. Are we then scientists: of course! Science is not by certificate or paycheck, or professional title. It is by truthful observation and consideration.
In this era there is much pretension in science. And it is killing, genocidal. There is much pretending in science and medicine. In medicine, pretending is actually a large part of the art of human relations in the practise of caregiving. Much pretending MUST go on, for wounds and diseases and disorders are often bleak, unrelenting, terrible upon terrible. Yet the mind of the afflicted is powerful and most powerful when in a "positive" or happy mindset. So a medical caregiver, a wise one, must include pretending as a major part of the art. There are ways of pretending which are not dishonest, which do not involve falsehoods, but which bring in hope, or redirect the awareness elsewhere to other points of mental focus.
Yet that necessary and valued art of medical pretending is like so many other aspects of culture and social habit today: intensely perverted, and harming. I make this as a scientific observation.
The great physicist and teacher of physics Feynman did science with a styrofoam coffee cup, hot and cold water and a rubber o-ring. His lessons were obvious in simple demonstration. Obvious to even the untrained, unlearned in science. Yet they upended years of hard, professional science and engineering: hard in this case meaning firmly established, set in detailed procedure, excruriatingly difficult to practise, like the type of "science" that Liam and so so many others hold to as the gold standard in medicine in this era.
Professor Feynman was addressing a tragic failure of such inscrutable to the layman, institutionalized science: the loss of all aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger, back in January of 1986. Sadly the full import of his lesson was not taken up into the cultures, the culture of science, and especially not the culture of bio-technology and medicine.
Science is knowable, and easily knowable to all who seek it.
Well said!!
And Feyman had to write a separate minority report :)
I like the very succinct way in which Bret Weinstein puts it:
"Is the sum total of all human knowledge the result of randomized control trials?"
The problem with science is when humanity sez: "I can play God better".
I think that's the quickest comment on any substack I ever posted :)
💜
Very nicely done. I would love to see Mannix respond. Not because I would necessarily expect he has anything worthwhile to say, but a fool can hope. In any event, the long term absence of worthy opponents is really frustrating.
Thanks :)
As far as what they would say:
One Pandemic, Two Interpretations, and the Unbridgeable Chasm that Separates Them
https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/one-pandemic-two-interpretations-b61
Another healthy young male dies, in Italy, heavy jabbed
Mom Demands Autopsy After Healthy 18-Year-Old Son Dies Suddenly
https://truthpress.com/news/mom-demands-autopsy-after-healthy-18-year-old-son-dies-suddenly/
I did a literature review of Echinacea, and the Cochrane meta-analysis was an outlier in criticality. Their exclusion criteria were so broad, their conclusions just didn't match the in vitro and clinical trials data.
And now we are running a clinical trial using Ivermectin and lactoferrin to shrink multiple tumors, it works for many and is the last hope for some due to resistance by the tumor to chemotherapy.
We are using regression analysis to test the findings. Cochrane would probably exclude this study entirely. The survivors have a different view, with improvements showing within weeks for many, and verified by PSA levels.
A Prostate Community Trial
A message to the medical community from A. M. Gonzalez
https://doorlesscarp953.substack.com/p/a-prostate-community-trial
😊😊😊