Rethinking science

Sciencing the rigged and corrupt scientific system for an overdue turnaround

Unless we change it, we’re doomed to the next PLANdemic. And yet, nothing has changed, only got worse! This isn’t pessimism: just a realistic call to ACTION in the medical and scientific freedom communities.

This is a chapter from the book about practical solutions to the global coup.

This research took 93 hours (including late night work), that will save you that amount of reading and organizing ideas. If you like it, please consider a paid subscription:

or please consider “buy me a coffee” (one dollar makes a difference):

“insanity, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”

Rita Mae Brown, misattributed to Einstein ¹

Retraction and censorship

Nobody is perfect. Nobody can know it all. Science is a process, not a dogma. Even Isaac Newton could be partially retracted after Einstein.

https://doi.org/10.5555/article.2408133 dead (retracted?) link from:
https://www.science.org/content/article/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty

“A very small fraction (about 4 in 10,000) of peer-reviewed manuscripts are retracted – papers that are withdrawn from their original publication. Some are retracted because of honest errors – an error in a modelling equation, a mistake in patient data entry – and some are not, for instance intentional manipulation of data.

When a manuscript is retracted, the publisher could remove the paper from the website (there’d be print copies if the journal offered that format). Until recently, there was no systematic way to find retracted papers or comb the data on retractions.

Now there is: the Retraction Watch Database, which contains information on over 18,000 retracted manuscripts², including reasons for retraction (if provided, ever): ³

• Relatively few authors (about 500) are responsible for a disproportionate number of retractions.

• The majority of retractions have involved scientific fraud or other kinds of misconduct.

• The rate of retraction due to plagiarism looks to be stabilizing and possibly declining over the last 7 years.

• Retraction due to fake peer-review has increased steadily, and is the reason for about 20% of all retractions (as of 2015 data).” ⁴

It is very hard to continuously check for retractions for each single reference in a paper. If a paper includes 20 references, if it takes 3 minutes/reference it’s a wasted hour of research! It’s insane to require all researchers to waste 1 hour per week per paper to keep his references updated:

Source: RetractionDatabase.org

It is humanly impossible to read all the retraction news, which by the way, involve all fields of science. Academic repositories like ResearchGate.net, which automatically recognize all citations in a paper, don’t include automatic email/SMS retraction alerts for the authors. Even retractiowatch.com doesn’t allow alerts by keywords: another simple improvement for science which inexplicably nobody implements. Authors could program a google alert, but not even doctorate professors teach that (another idea to implement). It would be so much easier to count on applications similar to plagiarism checkers.

Also, journals could provide an automatic retraction subscription (email, sms) for each reference a researcher copies/downloads in the “cite” section of the online article.

There’s an urgent need for open source retraction automatic tools.

Also, retraction shouldn’t involve a whole article, but only the errors in the article, explaining the reason of that specific error. This would reduce the possibility of censorship and increases learning by other people’s errors or repeating them.

Finally, the retracted paper should still be verifiable to avoid censorship and to help learn about avoiding the mistakes in good faith that led to the retraction.

Some, like Elsevier, leave the title and authors (not the abstract!), others, like ResearchGate and Figshare, don’t even leave a trace: no title, no authors, just an error page. History is re-written by deleting the e-trail… just like in Orwell’s 1984.

For example, this author found over 10 huge flaws (starting by leaving out first trimester pregnancies and half of the second trimeter⁵) in a 2021 paper supporting injecting the pregnant with COVID vaccines (which are still in experimental stage as of 2023, meaning that women and babies were used as guinea pigs, and according to the Canadian Ministry of Health, the vials were tainted with DNA hacking and a sequence of a carcinogenic monkey virus). The high impact journal had a form to comment the paper before publishing. Instead of retracting the paper, the comment was erased by the journal instead of retracting many of the paper’s conclusions … to avoid loss of reputation?

We humans are born to make mistakes, even researchers, peer-reviewers, editors, journals. The scientific community must be humble to recognize that a scientist is not a uber-mensch god in white coats (typical masonic ideology, by the way).

Nothing isn’t improvable. Perfect is perfectible. Nothing is perfect. Pretended perfection proves censored imperfection. Truth shouldn’t be sacrificed on the altar of reputation. Open mistakes, dissent and dialogue (especially with outsiders, even of the field or science) are a token of transparency.

Sciensorship

Albert Einstein: “Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.” ⁶

3 Jan 2018 ProjectVeritas.com revealed undercover video proving Shadow Banning: algorithms created to censor opposing views. “They just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.” ⁷ The PLANdemic wouldn’t have happened if the censorship machine wasn’t in place by then.

13 Jul 2019, just before the PLANdemic, The Lancet published an article about scientific censorship of research proving that abortion programs failed to “reduce deaths from unwanted pregnancies”, even if it was previously tailored by the donors in order to reduce the risk of achieving that conclusion:

(the funding government agency) “deliberately use ethical and methodological arguments to undermine essential research. In a context of chronic underfunding of universities and their growing dependence on donor-driven research grants…

(Donor) instructs the researchers to omit important results from their final report? Or puts pressure on them to change the tenor of their conclusions? Or … threatens the reputation of the researchers and their university if they publish negative findings?...

(Current systems) are ill equipped to deal with challenges when researchers are less powerful than the research subjects … partly because of the intimidating environment … a substantial reservoir of learning generated by more than 20 academic researchers over a 5­year period is not available to the public.”…

(The authors proposed) fully independent research project management committees that can arbitrate conflicts of interest, as exist for clinical trials…, an independent ombudsperson to consider how to better balance protection of organisations' interests and the public interest, as specified in the UK Economic and Social Research Council ethical guidance… (and) universities need stronger research governance frameworks to safeguard independence, but also on directly challenging the power of external donors… ⁸

Of course, nothing changed. It became and becomes worse by the day.

By Feb 2021, a hoard of published papers were screaming for book burning and witch hunting, claiming for government and social media censorship, supposedly, in order to save lives from misinformation, which was in fact true life-saving information (like ivermectin). ⁹

02 Aug 2021 Facebook blocked the account of French Prof. Christian Perronne, just for opposing the COVID narrative with scientific arguments. ¹⁰

14 Set 2021 A comment on LinkedIn included a link to a research DOI at figshare.com. Figshare immediately removed the paper. When the author complained, Figshare shut down his account and blocked his IP address from reopening the closed support claim. It became impossible to get a DOI (which has less chances of being caught by censors). So when the author posted the academia.edu link, it was immediately censored by Linkedin.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rwmalonemd_research-science-biotech-activity-6839540985089863681-1w3j

29 Dec 2021 In collaboration with the FBI, Twitter cancelled the accounts of Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Vanden Bossche and other leading scientists and physicians. Even if anybody disagreed with the posts, there was no open scientific debate, just cancel un-culture and censorship. This is not only an attack to freedom of science but especially to freedom of thought and speech: doctors and nurses were not allowed to share their experiences and cite scientific papers.

Even Wikipedia, founded by freemason Jimmy Wales, censored the bios of anti-narrative scientists and physicians, like Robert Malone.¹¹

The world has a level of censorship even worse than communist science. In the COVID era, fostered by regulations in over 50 countries against alleged misinformation, hard censorship has been rampant involving blacklisting of authors and papers, including thousands of preprints, which were deleted (even citation leaders after 120 000 views¹²).

Paradigmatic case:

“I recently shared a peer-reviewed study here that shows there is no correlation between masking and infections (when there is correlation, you cannot conclude there is causality. But when there isn't any correlation, you can in most cases safely exclude the possibility of causality). My post was taken down and LinkedIn refuses to put it up again. The reason seems to be this paragraph in their so-called "community guidelines":

"Do not share content that directly contradicts guidance from leading global health organizations and public health authorities."

In other words, it does not matter if what you say is true. All that matters is if it is in accordance with the official line. And at the same time we all know how many instances there have been where this information and guidance has been incorrect.

At the same time, their guidelines require users not to "share false or misleading content."

Now, one would assume this broader requirement would override the other one. But no. In fact, to Jeff Weiner and the rest of LinkedIn management, the truth is what the government says, not what is true. Lying and cheating is fine, as long as it is the government.” ¹³

Thumb-rule conclusion:

Correlation may be causation
so it demands investigation
Un-correlation proves un-causation
when there is no relation

There’s an urgent need for a modern free speech law, especially for science.

Soft censorship involved:

• Lack of automatic indexing and machine translation of non-English papers¹⁴ allows censorship of critical life-saving information. For example, this allowed the Director of JAMA to reject Dr. Carvallo’s groundbreaking paper proving zero contagion with a nasal spray and zero deaths with IDEA protocol.¹⁵

• Last-listing, either by de-ranking undesired research by previously tweaking the search algorithms (including the supposedly impersonal Artificial Intelligence) or up-ranking the preferred research.

• Growth blocking: impossibility to comment, like or share an anti-narrative post (twitter after Musk)

• Shadow blocking: impossibility to post (followers think the author is on permanent leave).

• Shadow banning: Twitter had a huge toolbox for controlling the visibility of any user, including a “Search Blacklist” (for Dan Bongino), a “Trends Blacklist” for Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and a “Do Not Amplify” setting for conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Weiss quotes a Twitter employee: “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool.”¹⁶

• Editorial direct rejection of any submissions against the “official truth” (like JAMA with Dr. Carvallo’s pioneer research proving the cure for COVID)

• Vague or even direct threats of cutting funding (grants) or sacking or losing a higher opening position.

• Black-listing or flagging an innocent link shortener to a pdf paper in Academia.edu¹⁷ as malware (sucuri.net), phishing site (CLEAN MX, Phishtank), malicious site (AutoShun) ¹⁸ and suspicious site (Quttera). Because of that, posts with the link would be blocked in many disseminating platforms and social media.

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/bit.do/covidresearch

Note: bit.do URL-shorter suspiciously disappeared as of Apr 2022

Hard censorship involved:

• Banning investigative and scientific journalists by Government pressure (or freemasonic orders) ¹⁹

• Harassment, firing, defunding.

• Deletion for no reason, like a survey of 300 thousand people showing the unvaxxed had half the hospitalization rate (0.3%) than the vaxxed (0.6%). ²⁰

ResearchGate sent the author an email: “In connection with using or accessing the Service, you shall not … Act unprofessionally or inappropriately, including by posting broad, vague, irrelevant, untargeted, off-topic, or non-scientific content, potentially harmful or potentially dangerous content, or by misusing the Service and its features. As stated in our Terms of Service, ResearchGate reserves the right to remove any content posted by you when we deem it to be necessary or appropriate, including if we determine that the content may expose us to harm, potential legal liability, or is in breach of our Terms.” ²¹ Yet, Researchgate lies, stating that the author removed the content!:

• Blocking the re-login to scientific platforms and blocking research with DOI in their platforms (n.b. ResearchGate²², Figshare²³).

• Stealth delisting: worse than book burning. Unlike breaking into homes, forcibly extracting books and burning them in a huge fire and smoke everyone can see, the searcher has no clue showing that what he is looking for is banned or buried after 10000 search results (n.b. Google and other search engines).

• Social media blocking “fake news” which were actually scientifically correct.

• Email blocking, even if just citing scientific research: breaking privacy, they were read and blocked under the excuse of fake news fighting. The sender would never find out the email never reached destination (no bouncing), even more in egroups or lists.

The most effective censorship is the one no one knows about: people still believe they are free. You can’t hate who you don’t know. You can’t fight what you can’t identify. Even worse, while you think your enemy is your friend, he can do most damage, especially, if you think your friend is your foe and your foe is your friend, like with fake “fake news” which are actually a lifesaving truth.

In the rough lands of uncertainty, science is a pilgrimage to truth, up the road paved by scouters. Science should be a friendly dialog, not a witch hunt. Editors shouldn’t be hangmen seeking exemplary punishment. Due to political and economic pressure, for no scientific reasons, with bad or no excuses, journals rejected politically incorrect, yet scientifically correct papers.

Journals usually took years to publish retractions but now it takes one phone call from the powers that be, and a paper is immediately retracted without giving any explanation. The increasing retraction trend is not only about a fight against “citation pollution” of bad science ²⁴ but about unscientific political persecution. A proof of persecution/censorship? Over 1000 COVID papers have been retracted as early as 18 Nov 2021, more than all papers (946) in all fields of science in 2014. ²⁵ Yet, retractionwatch.com, which is reviewed by humans, only informs of 200. ²⁶

Such was the case for the FLCCC first paper on COVID treatments, involving ivermectin. One of the studies used for their meta-analysis had been retracted, yet instead of automatically correcting the numbers of the meta-analysis, keeping the positive conclusions, the editor decided to “throw the baby with the bath tub”:

a) As we’ve seen above, with current tech, it is not realistic to expect an author to check for retraction every single reference in his article.

b) If the retraction happened during the review process, it’s the reviewer’s job to check retractions, and they also subject to human limitations: there’s a need for an automatic retraction match of citations.

c) Especially in a meta-analysis, if the retracted study, doesn’t change the main conclusions, there is no need to retract the whole research, the author just needs to remove the flawed study and recalculate.

After accepting the paper and not correcting it at the peer review stage, instead of correcting it (addendum) or asking the authors to correct the errors (corrigendum) ²⁷, they just retracted and completely wiped it out, delaying publication by months and possibly costing thousands of lives. ²⁸

Today, if anybody searches https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.643369 , the result is:

DOI.org didn’t list censorship as the reason for “DOI not found”. By law any DOI should never be removed.

Another flawed argument for retracting it: a medical paper is recommending its own treatment. If a doctor’s observations seem to show that his treatment is working, it’s ridiculous to ask him immolate himself in the altar of the idol of objectivity. This would destroy case studies, which are the base for conclusive meta-analysis. It’s the others job to prove or disprove reproducibility.

Another paper from Dr. Kory was retracted with the lame excuse that he only measured results (deaths) in a certain period and that if it was extended, the conclusions would remain but would be weaker. ²⁹ It is true that many scientist cherry pick study periods, especially with respect of vaccine efficacy. In the COVID run for life, there is no time to wait for longer periods. Editors should ask for complete updated periods but not beyond submission. Also, instead of retraction, they should ask for updates.

The most recent and scandalous unscientific retraction by Elsevier was Dr. Peter McCullough’s paper proving a high risk of myocarditis in COVID vaccinated teens. Not even the abstract was left, only the title and authors. ³⁰ Of course, the “temporary” removal was made permanent, without any explanation. ³¹

Government sciensorship

08 Feb 2022, the United States Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin defining as domestic terrorism any questioning (even scientific) of the COVID narrative. ³²

“Authorities have cherry picked science and scientists… (in order to attack Doctor’s) ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath… to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care… (and to) stand up to the medical tyranny… we (should) form a new World Health Organization… optimizing human health and potential, not contraception and population control.” ³³

“It’s easier to get illegal drugs in USA than a lifesaving Nobel prize winning drug. How did we get here!? By allowing the creation of the ‘administrative state’. That is, the ‘independent agencies’ of the federal government, like FDA, with all three functions of government placed in its hands: legislative, executive, and judicial. All run by persons the people do not elect.... What could go wrong?” ³⁴

Corporate capture of the UK NHS

SpinWatch.org, PowerBase.info/index.php/Main_Page

2022 Twitter files exposed by Elon Musk for lowering his buyout cost, showed:³⁵

• Pentagon interference: after the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) sent over a list of 52 Arab-language accounts “we use to amplify certain messages,” Twitter agreed to “whitelist” them. Ultimately the program would be outed in the Washington Post in 2022 — two years after Twitter and other platforms stopped assisting — but contrary to what came out in those reports, Twitter knew about and/or assisted in these programs for at least three years, from 2017-2020.

• CIA officials attended at least one conference with Twitter in the summer of 2020, and companies like Twitter and Facebook received “OGA briefings,” at their regular “industry” meetings held in conjunction with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI and the “Foreign Influence Task Force” met regularly “not just with Twitter, but with Yahoo!, Twitch, Cloudfare, LinkedIn, even Wikimedia.”

• Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth not only met regularly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, but with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

• “FBI was adamant no impediments to sharing” classified information exist. Twitter also agreed to “bounce” content on the recommendations of a wide array of governmental and quasi-governmental actors, from the FBI to the Homeland Security agency CISA to Stanford’s Election Integrity Project to state governments. The company one day received so many moderation requests from the FBI, an executive congratulated staffers at the end for completing the “monumental undertaking.”

• Twitter was compensated for “processing requests” by the FBI, saying “I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!”

• Twitter took in requests from everyone — Treasury, HHS, NSA, FBI, DHS, etc. — and also received personal requests from politicians like Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, who asked to have journalist Paul Sperry suspended. Biden administration officials were “very angry” that Twitter had not deplatformed more accounts. White House officials for instance wanted attention on anti-COVID-lies reporter Alex Berenson: banned!

• TWITTER CENSORS THE COVID DEBATE: throttled down information about COVID that was true but inconvenient for public officials, “discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed.” Also, “countless” instances of Twitter banning or labeling “misleading” accounts that were true or merely controversial. A Rhode Island physician named Andrew Bostom, for instance, was suspended for, among other things, referring to the results of a peer-reviewed study on mRNA vaccines.

• Twitter censors the Climate Change debate: suspensions for prolific climate denial accounts like @CarbonGate (30,000+ followers) and @Can_Climate_Guy (3,000+ followers), as well as prolific COVID-19 “misinformation” accounts. ³⁶

Biden’s White House also prosecuted through censorship and shadow banning in social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram) any public figure citing scientific data against the CO-VAX propaganda: Robert Kennedy Jr., Tucker Carlson, etc. ³⁷

10 Jan 2023 RFK, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Trial Site News, Ty and Charlene Bollinger (founders of The Truth About Cancer and The Truth About Vaccines), Jim Hoft (The Gateway Pundit) and others, sue Trusted News Initiative (TNI) ³⁸, an “industry partnership” launched in March 2020 by the world’s largest news organizations, including the BBC, The Associated Press (AP), Reuters and The Washington Post, together with social media like Google/YouTube, Twitter, Meta/Facebook, for antitrust and First Amendment: censoring news, including COVID-19 and the 2020 U.S. presidential election.³⁹

Rebuild Science

COVID proved there’s an urgent need to rethink thinking, especially science. Reinventing science is a unconducive term. You can’t reinvent science as much as you can’t reinvent the wheel, yet even wheels have been perfected.

The following ideas are of common sense, yet, believe it or not, none of them has been systematized in science, even after so many centuries of scientific quest and so much progress in the scientific method and gauging technology. Governments and corporations are not solving the rampant corruption of science, they are promoting it. There’s an urgent need for laws and regulations to make science great again… or at least, independent. ⁴⁰

One of the attacks to the scientific method is it’s redefinition to avoid counter-evidence. For example, the California department of education redefined the "scientific method" as CER:

• Claim = What you know

• Evidence = How you know it

• Reasoning = Your thought process

A claim is made, then evidence supporting the claim is sought (ignoring evidence against the claim), then "reasoning" is given in favor of the claim.

Another attack is rejecting hypothesis that are outside the physical world (meta-physical), even if they have proof in the physical world. They therefore reject paranormal activity, even if evidence-based. Also, meta-directed/tweaked evolution. But at the same time, they accept fairy-tale meta-universes, without any evidence in this one, just because it would rule out God as the Big Bang Creator.

Sharing science

There’s a problem with paywall science. There is a need for a law that forbids private profiteering from government grants, even indirectly. If ‘we the people’ fund it, it belongs to the people, be “it” science, patents, careers, etc. Science shouldn’t be hostage of corporations or the military-industrial complex. People don’t eat weapons (it’s the opposite!). Whatever is funded by the people should benefit the people.

Academic echo-chamber

The failure of all public health academic institutions to denounce the unscientific PLANdemic shows that something is very wrong with the academic system, completely co-opted by vested interests through corporate foundations, and corporate funded puppeticians, who in turn appoint puppet employees at government agencies.

For instance, in the USA there’s the Council on Education for Public Health⁴¹, which, according to the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health with 70 thousand current students (how are they all going to get Public Health jobs?), is supposedly an “independent agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit schools of public health, and public health programs outside schools of public health.” ⁴² If we follow some of the money, we find the usual suspects: co-opted government agencies, and the globalist Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, WK Kellog foundation, etc. ⁴³

When we analyse Public Health programs, they are not designed by frontline physicians but by desk clerks. Universities only accept CEPH graduates as professors, so there’s a vicious circle, an echo-chamber.

The academics in medicine follow a similar pattern but even worse: there’s an open unashamed interference from Big Pharma.

The same Big money academic echo-system is found in politically correct fields like environmental and climate science (key for the decarbonisation plandemic), bio and anthropological sciences (key for Darwinian anti-scientific narratives) ⁴⁴, education, etc.

Diversity

The academic-scientific system would greatly improve by accepting non-career professors and researchers and experts with hands-on, real-life experience, even if they have no academic accreditation or experience, and with them, innovative evidence-based practical curricular changes.

Competing approaches

Competition gives agility: no contest to the status quo might mean something is wrong, especially funding concentration.

Study design phase

A lot of resources are wasted in badly designed studies, especially those omitting important confounding variables.

Case study: this study involving 555 children concluded: “Infants with a greater infection burden in the first year of life had proinflammatory and proatherogenic plasma metabolomic/lipidomic profiles at 12 months of age that in adults are indicative of heightened risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes.” ⁴⁵

Correlation isn't causation. The only exclusion criteria, was “very preterm (<32 completed weeks gestation) or had a serious illness or major congenital malformation identified during the first few days of life.” Yet:

1. It’s interesting no boom in infant cardiovascular diseases was detected after the 2020 COVID waves, unlike the 2021 post-vax disaster.

2. Breastfeeding reduces cardiac risk. Breastfed babies rarely get very sick from colds and make much less hospital visits.

3. Obesity reduces immune response while increases metabolic problems and inflammation, impacting on heart risk: it increases in babies with less breastfeeding, especially, due to formula.

Interestingly, the study didn't adjust for the 3 most important confounding variables: obesity, COVID vaccine adverse events and breastfeeding, yet the leading author knew about the benefits of breastfeeding because he recommended it after the study as a solution, but ending with “timely vaccination”. ⁴⁶

This wasn’t a study by a lone student or a loss bullet, the team involved over 16 physicians and PhDs and 9 “reputable” institutions like:

1. The Royal Children’s Hospital

2. The University of Melbourne

3. Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute

4. The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health

5. Deakin University

6. Radboud University Medical Centre in the Netherlands

7. The University of Queensland

8. Barwon Health

9. Monash University

If we follow the money, it has government strings all over it. ⁴⁷ Echoed by media as “Childhood colds linked to heart issues”⁴⁸ , it is clear the intention was to frighten parents into taking their children to flu and experimental COVID vaccination. Business as usual, you get what they paid for:“garbage in, garbage out”… the type of garbage that was paid for.

Conclusion: we need research ethical guidelines to include a compulsory peer reviewed study-design phase where others could comment freely. Also, there should be a compulsory funding section including the exact amount given and received by each party.

Paid consensus = nonsensus

“Above all, experts prefer to work within and propagate safe, consensus positions. This is because they have primarily careerist goals, which are best pursued secure from the criticism of colleagues. Being wrong is not nearly so important as seeming wrong, which can cost you promotion… experts are little more than consensus-establishing and -propagating professionals…

Most of the theories that are put about are not really theories at all. They are, instead, arguments, designed to justify or advocate for specific policies. Arguments are not genuine attempts to understand anything; they are attempts to convince other people to think in a certain way.

People assemble arguments like they would a house. They develop a program (the plan), collect evidence in favour of this program (the materials), and finally they present their program with all the evidence adduced in neat footnotes (the construction). This approach is reasonable enough, if all you want to do is persuade, but if you want to understand how a given model of reality fares against others, it is the wrong way.”.⁴⁹

"Consensus of the experts" has nothing to do with the scientific method and involves 3 fallacies:

• Appeal to authority

• Appeal to popularity

• Tautology of expert naming:

  • Definition of expertise and sufficient level of expertise: who, how and why is defined ?

  • Expertise in one branch doesn’t mean expertise in one particular topic.

  • Some topics require multi-disciplinary approach.

  • Excess specialization may lead to errors.

  • Accessing a formal expert position may involve selling the soul to a lie. Remember soviet science.

  • Authorities in scientific or medical societies might not be an authority in a topic and might have vested interests (like medical societies or universities paid by Big Pharma)

Possibly apocryphal⁵⁰ but well argued:

In reply to the book “100 authors against Einstein” ⁵¹, “Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.''⁵² “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” ⁵³

Politically correct means politics, not science. Ideology means losing touch with reality. Ideology draws the line between scientific consensus and nonsensus. Unfortunately, consensus is established by the hidden agenda of those funding science.

How do you get everyone to believe a lie? By placing liars in the highest ranks and co-opting with bribes or threats those who might not comply. Pay them to surround themselves with liars to repeat the lie. Due to cognitive inertia, people won’t make an effort to question the lies they hear everywhere, especially if truth is defunded, unfunded, censored or prosecuted. COVID showed how far the powers that be, advanced in creating a lying elite, immoral enough to kill millions with lies. No matter how bright, you can’t expect light from a dark person. Selection of the un-fittest: the more immoral/incompetent, the higher chance of being up in the ladder.

Reproducibility

There’s no incentive to replicate a study: if it’s corroborated, it’s no news for any journal, and if it’s not, it’s still no news for any journal.

Yet, that data is important in order to assess model strength. We need a database for reproduced studies/conclusions, even more than for contradictory data, considering that 70% of scientists report having been unable to reproduce another scientist’s experiment.⁵⁴

Those unsuccessful attempts were never published or denounced. Why?

1. They are given the benefit of the doubt, considering that many original studies omit critical information which would allow checking them.

2. Avoiding controversy and scandal, hurting the field or honor of the profession.

3. Avoiding backlash if the original study was indeed OK.

4. Avoiding retaliation from the original journal or even other journals bayoneting a troublemaker.

5. Esprit de corps: a wrong understanding of loyalty towards colleagues

Reproducibility is essential to falsifiability: it includes sharing all the information relevant to reproduce the same experiments/results. The concept of reproducibility should include bad results, raw data, specifications, source code, apps used, detailed procedure, theoretical models, equipment brands, last calibration, way of calibration, etc.

For example, the disastrous Oxford COVID model, which was used to justify deadly lockdowns wouldn’t have happened if it had followed open data and open science: the errors could have been spotted sooner.

There’s a need for seals to point “unfalsified” research as pseudo-science, ideology or hypothesis, e.g. global warming, climate action, evolution theory, gender ideology, etc. (though they’ve been falsified, the knowledge isn’t mainstream). Also, another seal for not being reproduced. But seals could be corrupted or weaponized, so the issuers should have open unbiased standards.

Publishing bottleneck

Due to new Ph.D. graduates, growing non-academic expert/technical publishing, improved research productivity (including referencing and writing apps), year after year, preprints grow exponentially, with the respective demand for journal publishing. Yet, the publishing frequency and number of new journals doesn’t match the production.

This delays important ground-breaking research, especially if it challenges the consensual model. Just think how many years it took Einstein to be taken seriously. Delay should be intolerable in medicine: it means loosing lives or extending the unbearable pain of patients.

Also, some scientists or doctors can’t afford translating or publishing, especially in the most read journals. It took Dr. Carvallo 4 precious months to finally publish the cure for COVID in English, but since it was in a low impact journal, it was invisible to medicine.

Finally, some scientists don’t care about fame or don’t want to invest their precious time in marketing their work, in order to focus in what they do best: science. Usually, the more technical the field, the less the writing skills. Sometimes a paper doesn’t reach the deserved impact because the authors don’t use a catchy title, or the abstract is unreadable (there’s no need for large strings of confusing characters, especially confidence intervals). By the way, it would save everybody’s time if abstracts could allow tables, pictures and graphs (an image is worth a thousand words), and why not, short videos.

Academia.edu has pioneered the way with automatized peer review of preprints, which is a very smart move to add another layer of checking before submission for printing… or never printing. The way to go is automatic peer review and cooperation, qualified comments, eBay and Amazon qualification models, allowing continuous improvement to a perfecting preprint: let truth find its way in a new model of science without gate keepers.

Sciencing failure

Failure is good, if you learn.

Failure is common good, if we learn.

“Failure is my classroom.” — Nick Vujicic ⁵⁵

“You’re never a loser until you quit trying.” —Mike Ditka

“Losers quit when they fail. Winners fail until they succeed.” —Robert Kiyosaki

“To be a good loser is to learn how to win.” —Carl Sandburg

Science needs to engineer Successful Failure. Failure knowledge is an asset⁵⁶: we need open science, by opening to failure.

Think about how Edison tried so many materials for the electric bulb filament until finding the best one. If he’d published them, many others could have avoided wasting energies in repeating failure.

One reason that science didn’t develop to capitalize failure was because of the cost of printing. Digitalization reduced the cost to near zero. There are no excuses to keep a Gutenberg-age model.

Few repeats are enough for reproducibility, yet without record, failed trials could continue for ever. Learning from failure means success. There’s never failure when it enables success. In medicine, publishing a failed treatment saves lives by focusing resources in alternatives, while not wasting life-saving time.

Sharing dead ends, disproven hypothesis, bad results or methodologies, less sub or non-outcomes, saves time and resources for other researchers.

“Positive failure” requires systemizing failure documentation, not only by carefully describing and understanding what lead to it, but by organizing failure trees.

Scientific growth seems to be slowly reaching an asymptote in some areas, where it isn’t about standing on giants’ shoulders anymore but about forming a human pyramid or relay racing.

Theoretical and basic science is doomed to fail: it always implies economic losses in the short run. Yet without it, many modern technologies like GPS smartphones wouldn’t have been possible. The same goes for math. Still, in order to avoid wasteful redundancy and lack of strategic focus, governments need a return on investment plan, including the market value of potential discoveries (n.b. increasing output and productivity, cutting down design, testing, production and logistic costs).

Funding failure

Hippocrates: “for one can learn good lessons also from what has been tried but clearly has not succeeded, when it is clear why it has not succeeded.” ⁵⁷

Science opened to failure means opened to success. Sometimes, closing the possibility of exploration and failure implies shutting the door of innovation and creativity. If funding goes only to what looks fail proof, we’d lose so many discoveries which result from apparent failures or even accidents.

Democratizing science

In sociology of science, science advances one funeral at a time. ⁵⁸ Physics Nobel Prize (1918) Max Planck wrote “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” ⁵⁹

Planck's principle isn’t applicable nowadays. The new generations are shaped by a corrupted system which runs merely on money. It’s more like “science progresses one dime at a time”. Only truth-kamikazes or outsiders could change the status quo.

Science has become religion, including sacred texts, priests, human sacrifice, witch hunting, and burning heretics. ⁶⁰ The basis for science is questioning. Rational reproducibility involves questioning and proving of hypothesis. If the god of scientific consensus is closed to questioning, it’s not science. No questioning, no science, just power.

Mainstream medical and scientific systems were a complete failure in treating COVID. Some state like the FLCCC that the real pandemic was of untreatment. They proved to be slow, useless, extremely costly and corrupt. Others say it was a pandemic of ignorance and fear, which blocked common sense, especially among scientists and doctors.

COVID showed that some patients knew more than their doctors and that some doctors knew better than hospitals, medical associations and health authorities, i.e. lives were sacrificed to the unquestionable god of “scientific consensus”, a terrible deity always threatening with lawsuits, malpractice, delicensing, sacking or banning. Badge science pushes bad science.

In the history of science, several cases showed that academic consensus was in fact scientific non-sensus. Science shouldn’t be the whore of the powerful. Nothing changed since 1881, when the establishment ignored for 20 years, Cuban Dr. Carlos J. Finlay’s proof that female Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes were responsible for the transmission of the yellow fever (virus) ⁶¹: the arrogance of the powerful is the main enemy of scientific progress and costs lives.

Sovietization of science? Scientific structures based on political or ideological-money were responsible for the development of Frankenstein science, where enormous monsters are created by stitching rotten parts (unscientific/flawed papers, trash science). Even when the emperor is bare naked, few dare to denounce that Frankenstein is dead science from scratch. Even fewer dare to publish: too many vested interests, too much persecution of truth.

Some examples of Frankie-science: overpopulation, gender ideology, Darwinian theory of evolution, manmade global warming, decarbonisation for climate change, canonization of e-cars and so-called renewable energies, war on fossil fuels, cattle flatulence, incandescent bulbs, CFCs, etc.

There are cases when outsiders have out-mastered the most reputed academic authorities, especially, in hands-on technical areas. The academic system should be opened to degrees-by-publication, like in the UK. Journals should be opened to outsiders without “proper” credentials. Science is not about badges but about truth, whoever holds it.

Funding science

Science has become a whore of a hidden dictatorship. Just like in soviet science, there’s plenty of funding for politically correct scientifically incorrect research, and zero funding for politically incorrect scientifically correct research.

It is unconscionable that all over the globe, there was and is zero government large trial funding for cheap effective and safe promising COVID drugs, shown here. Also, there’s no funding for cataloguing native medicinal plants and testing them.

The Big Pharma model, has hijacked medicine and patients.

How is it possible that in double blind COVID vaccine trials, Big Pharma was allowed to use a neurotoxic element as placebo (aluminium), instead of water? The same goes for the HPV vaccine: to increase side effects in the placebo arm compared to the vaccinated, they’ve been using the vaccine excipients (including dangerous elements) instead of salty water. On the other hand, government funding was used to attack working treatments, even using an effective treatment as placebo (vitamin C).

Pharmaceutical corporations shouldn’t be responsible for designing and running the trials, processing the information for treatment approvals. That should be done through an open process involving doctors (medical and Ph.D.s) and patient NGOs, since all medical societies funded by governments and corporations proved to be accomplice of quadruple genocide:

• COVID untreatment (counting on effective treatments)

• COVID mala praxis (injuring or lethal treatments like paracetamol and intubation)

• Lethal vaccine promotion

• Lethal vaccine effects untreatment

Funding could and should come from manufacturers and governments, but the money should go to transparent trusts lead by patient associations and frontline doctors.

Academic promotions should be linked to scientific useful production, not refried papers and PR skills. Is it selection of the unfitest? In the US, professors get tenure from landing lucrative grants. Another issue is the revolving door and open door between industry, academia, and government. Some work at all three, sometimes simultaneously. ⁶²

Patents

Not even AIDS or COVID were life threatening enough to waive patents. There’s something very wrong with the patent system: it’s not designed to increase research and progress for the benefit of the people but to fill the pockets of the technocrats of Big Biz.

Patents should last fewer years, even less if the innovation would be anyway discovered by others soon. For example, it’s ridiculous to accept Amazon’s one click shopping patent or patents predating by months software developed through by open source. It’s ridiculous to allow patenting of natural gene sequences.

Also, it’s unconscionable that health agencies are run by people with patent royalties from the pharmaceutical industry, even more if the patents were developed with public funding. For instance, “Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins and other bigwigs at the National Institutes of Health reaped more than $350 million in secretive “royalty” payments from drug companies and other third parties over a 10-year period.” ⁶³.

Scientific monopoly = groupthink

Science needs open funding to become fully open source:

With growing digital only publication, to avoid irreplaceable losses, there’s a need for redundant silos of knowledge by NGOs and Governments, especially if we consider a concentration of power in a few organizations, like PubMed/PMC/Medline/NCBI ⁶⁴, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar and Web of Science⁶⁵.

Archive.org’s wayback machine has the monopoly for our digital history and has deleted politically incorrect but truthful scientific information, just like Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

Retraction is too serious: there shouldn’t be an oligopoly which doesn’t allow to know the reasons of retraction (retractiowatch.com, retractiondatabase.org): there should be a second peer review to give a second verdict if there was really a reason for retraction.

There’s also a risky concentration of indexing and scoring Impact factor. The score of an academic journal, reflecting the yearly average number of citations of the journal’s articles, can’t be based on a few systems (Journal Citation Reports impact factors by Clarivate, CiteScore by Elsevier based on the Scopus database). Is the divergence explained by indexing censorship?

CiteScore appeared more encompassing with 22K indexed journals, compared to JCR’s 11K (2016).

Note: also, there are different definitions of "number of publications" and "citable items".⁶⁶

“CiteScore vs. Impact Factor for American Chemical Society (ACS, green) and Nature group journals (blue), 2017 data. The values for Nature journals lie well above the expected ca. 1:1 linear dependence because those journals contain a significant fraction of editorials.” ⁶⁷ Linear dependence to leading journals shows a potential problem in science objectivity: few editors control science.

It is very worrying that several globalist organizations are controlling science, e.g. Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic (whose Open Data Commons license allowed to integrate Elsevier into the Initiative for Open Citations, I4OC.org, for “unrestricted availability of scholarly citation data”).

For instance, I4OC was endorsed Wellcome Trust, the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, being the founding partners Wikimedia Foundation (another science censor), PLOS, OpenCitations, eLife, DataCite, etc.

I4OC is based on Crossref.org, “an official digital object identifier (DOI) Registration Agency of the International DOI Foundation” (Doi.org) has the power to censor research just by unlinking or relinking Digital Object Identifiers or by denying a DOI. The same as PMC, PMID, S2CID.

The same applies for the Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA.org), “a sister initiative of I4OC aimed at promoting openness of abstracts of scholarly publications. I4OC and I4OA are managed by different teams, but these teams consist partly of the same individuals.” ⁶⁸

The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR⁶⁹) indicator: “accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the prestige of the journals where the citations come from. The calculation of the SJR indicator is similar to the Eigenfactor score⁷⁰, with the former being based on the Scopus database and the latter on the Web of Science database.” ⁷¹ Is “prestigious” defined by citation parroting? “reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank.” ⁷² Is that proof that those indexes just measure an echo-chamber of lies? How does the evaluation of “prestigious” impact in the score? Why should a score be higher if it comes from a subjectively defined “prestigious” level and not according to an objective measure including, for example, open data and reproduced results?

There are many other metrics which are sold as objective statistics⁷³, yet they all share the same flaw: garbage in, garbage out. The essential problem is a corrupted system that produces junk food for the brain and has no effective way of distinguishing it from nutritious food, except deep-reading the whole paper and reproducing the results.

SciencEthics

COVID has shown that there’s a need to an ethical certification of scientists and academic/scientific processes, including topics like disclosure of conflicts of interests and their investigation, plagiarism, cherry/model picking, etc., but also, there’s a need for bioethics. For instance, scientists shouldn’t use humans as guinea pigs, yet they are still experimenting with living human beings (embryos), human-animal chimeras, children (n.b. COVID vaccines) and adults without informed consent.

Bioethical consensus supports elective and scientifically-proven safe and effective treatments with prior informed consent (which involves verifiable patient adjusted understanding of updated objective untainted information, n.b.not tainted by the manufacturer) comparing available medical treatments, adjusted to personal circumstances, health indicators and clinical records in a holistic approach to health and well-being, including general and especially personal/ized (adjusted to personal urgency, comorbidities, financial situation, ability to follow treatment, etc.):

• Risks: considering current vaccines could cause severe adverse reactions, even death. Risks of rejecting vaccination/medication adjusted to reduction or complete reversal by other treatments (n.b. globulins).

• Benefits: Is the treatment really necessary? Do you have natural immunity or cross-immunity from prior infections so you don’t need a vaccine? Is it necessary now?: local (not national) epidemiology.

• Personal effectiveness: including sex adjusted treatment, bioavailability, interaction with other treatments, food, drinks, behaviours, etc. Includes behavioural medicine.

• Evaluation of “no treatment” option or procrastination risk-benefit curve.

• Costs: direct and indirect costs (including transportation).

• Physical access: personal mobility limitations, facility limitations, etc.

• Financial access: personal financial situation, personal accessibility to financial/governmental aid

• Treatments of the risks of accepting/rejecting each treatments recommended by the doctor: same items as above

• Cost/Benefit analysis of all alternatives customized to each patient. For example, if you don’t vaccinate and you get infected, what is the efficacy, safety and cost of the available treatments.

All of the bioethical minimum conditions for informed consent are violated in COVID vaccination consent forms.

Box of tricks

Most scientists know you can torture numbers until they scream the lies they want.

One of them is to exclude from meta-analysis all the studies they don’t like, conveniently called “problematic”: without defining a prior objective rule, you can’t expect an objective result.

Discarded studies should be mentioned with the precise reasons for their exclusion like “major issues likely (significant chance% ) to substantially (%) alter results, non-standard studies, and studies where very minimal detail is currently available. Checklist-based approaches such as Cochrane GRADE may underemphasize serious issues not captured in the checklists, overemphasize issues unlikely to alter outcomes in specific cases (for example, lack of blinding for an objective mortality outcome, or certain specifics of randomization with a very large effect size), or be easily influenced by potential bias.” ⁷⁴

Espistemology

Another problem, is the restrained definition of science, imprisoned only to the measurable material world:

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted”

William Bruce Cameron⁷⁵

Yet, even what can be counted is rejected because it can only be explained spiritually. Deliberate scientific myopia? The science gate-keepers should be opened to physically measurable phenomena, only explainable through paranormal or supernatural hypothesis.

There are hundreds of papers proving that those who live according to traditional morality have a happier, healthier and longer life, than those choosing traditional evil lifestyles. Was the spiritual morality invented from experience or does experience prove the super-natural world?:

There’s a growing literature in peer-reviewed journals about Near-Death Experiences, which show that consciousness, intelligence, will, are all spiritual properties of the spiritual immortal soul: some of the blind from birth see in colors for the first time, when they are brain dead (no electricity, no activity, no bloodflow, no oxygen) and also no heartbeat and no breathing. The same happens with some of the deaf: they listen for the first time to conversations around or if they go up, even celestial music! ⁷⁶

Science backs religion. The majority of scientists are religious, yet “no one today can deny that there is a popular ‘warfare’ framing between science and religion.” ⁷⁷ Mainstream science could prove the existence of the immortal soul, ghosts, demons, angels, God, true religion, ⁷⁸ but censors the measurable data and denies funding (especially, the masonic Templeton Foundation, which claims to fund such research, but just seeks to obfuscate the truth).

An agnostic is just someone not searching enough for truth. An agnostic researcher is just failing to re-search.

Atheism is just a fanatic belief denying reality.⁷⁹ Atheistic science is a contradiction in terms!

Call to action

1. Share, especially with health staff and scientists:

2. If you didn’t receive this by email, please subscribe:

3. Show your love in the tip jar =)

(one dollar makes a difference)

4. Please consider a paid subscription:

5. Please consider commissioning an article for the topic of your preference:

Most important: let’s keep praying for each other and the conversion of our enemies!

---

Footnotes

1 Rita Mae Brown. Sudden Death. 1983. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05004-4

2 https://retractionwatch.com/2018/10/25/were-officially-launching-our-database-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

3 Brainard J, You J, What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing's ‘death penalty': better editorial oversight, not more flawed papers, might explain flood of retractions. 25 Oct 2018

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty

4 http://aimbiomedical.com/retraction-database/

5 https://bit.ly/research2000

6 https://quotepark.com/quotes/1935333-albert-einstein-science-can-flourish-only-in-an-atmosphere-of-free/

7 https://www.projectveritas.com/news/undercover-video-twitter-engineers-to-ban-a-way-of-talking-through-shadow-banning-algorithms-to-censor-opposing-political-opinions/

8 Storeng KT, Palmer J. When ethics and politics collide in donor-funded global health research. 22 Mar 2019 The Lancet Viewpoint, Vol 394, ISSUE 10193, P184-186, July 13, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30429-5

9 Saiful I,Abu-Hena Mostofa K, et al. COVID-19 vaccine rumors and conspiracy theories: The need for cognitive inoculation against misinformation to improve vaccine adherence. 24 Feb 2021 PLOS May 12, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251605

10 https://www.archyde.com/professor-perronnes-facebook-page-suspended-while-fake-pages-remain/

11

Wikipedia

12 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19397.47844/1

13 Thorsteinn Siglaugsson, post 12 May 2022

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/siglaugsson_linkedin-misinformation-lies-activity-6928311790279778304-Ihp1

14 Ristanović, E. S., Kokoškov, N. S., Crozier, I., Kuhn, J. H., & Gligić, A. S. (2020). A Forgotten Episode of Marburg Virus Disease: Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 1967. Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR, 84(2), e00095-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00095-19

15 http://bit.ly/research2000

16

Capsule Summaries of all Twitter Files Threads to Date, With Links and a Glossary

17 http://bit.ly/research2000 using

https://securityscan.getastra.com/malware-scanner?site=https%3A%2F%2Fbit.do%2Fcovidresearch#results

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/7be566d6c2ca2c8aac67b974ef87e0c136345a6356f62e75ef3b564dfdd18e80

Results came clean with the direct link: https://www.academia.edu/45000293/

https://urlscan.io/result/76cc76af-eb4e-4b1a-b1a6-70e09c0c0a3b/

18 https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/7be566d6c2ca2c8aac67b974ef87e0c136345a6356f62e75ef3b564dfdd18e80

19 https://www.theblaze.com/shows/the-glenn-beck-program/adam-schiff-journalist-ban

20 Verkerk R, Plothe Do C et al. Self-reported outcomes, choices and discrimination among a global COVID-19 unvaccinated cohort. Survey data from COVID-19 unvaccinated populations. Jun 2022. Alliance for Natural Health International. ResearchGate.net https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28855.19369 now on Authorea.com: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.165556998.84120061/v1

https://web.archive.org/web/20220609133442/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361175995_Self-reported_outcomes_choices_and_discrimination_among_a_global_COVID-19_unvaccinated_cohort

21 https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/news/statements/researchgate-control-group/

22 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19397.47844/1

23 https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13550030

24 Van Der Walt W, Willems K, et al. Retracted Covid-19 papers and the levels of 'citation pollution': A preliminary analysis and directions for further research. Cahiers de la Documentation - Bladen voor Documentatie. 3 (4). https://hdl.handle.net/10962%2F167732

25

http://retractiondatabase.org/

26 https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/

27 https://www.atlantis-press.com/policies/article-retraction-and-withdrawal

28 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505

29 https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/09/bad-math-covid-treatment-paper-by-pierre-kory-retracted-for-flawed-results/

30 Rose J, McCullough PA, A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, 1 Oct 2021, Current Problems in Cardiology, Withdrawn Article in Press https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101011 Full article here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20211007022704/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280621002267#

31 https://retractionwatch.com/2021/10/25/covid-19-vaccine-myocarditis-paper-to-be-permanently-removed-elsevier/

32 https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ntas/alerts/22_0207_ntas-bulletin.pdf

33 Lawrie, Tess. Final speech at The First International Ivermectin for COVID Conference (IICC) 25 Apr 2021

https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/IICC-DrTessLawrieSpeech-042521.html

34 https://rumble.com/vwfia3-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-oracle-films.html Comments

35

Capsule Summaries of all Twitter Files Threads to Date, With Links and a Glossary

All Twitter Files Unrolled

36

Twitter's climate vigilantes

37 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/white-house-censorship-twitter-rfk-jr/

38 https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative/

39 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/lawsuit-trusted-news-initiative-antitrust-first-amendment-censoring-covid-content/

40 MAGA = make academics great again?

41

https://ceph.org/

42 https://www.aspph.org/study/what-is-ceph-accreditation/

43 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Medical Association Foundation (AMA), American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fahs-Beck Fund for Research and Experimentation, Fogarty International Center, NIH (FIC), Food and Nutrition Service, USDA (FNS), Health Effects Institute (HEI), Health Resource and Service Administration (HRSA), Human Impact Partners (HIP), Indian Health Service (IHS), The Kresge Foundation USA, National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), National Library of Medicine (NLM), NIH USA, National Network of Public Health Institutes (NNPHI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), Rural Information Center, National Agricultural Library (RIC), Rural Health Information Hub, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), HHS, W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) USA, Wellcome Trust, William T. Grant Foundation.

44 Video: https://odysee.com/@DocumentaryForKevin:d/Expelled---No-Intelligence-Allowed-%282008%29:1

Audio:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

45 Mansell T, Saffery R, et al. Early life infection and proinflammatory, atherogenic metabolomic and lipidomic profiles in infancy: a population-based cohort study,10 may 2022 eLife. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75170

46 https://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Children_s_Health_200/Potential-Pathway-Linking-Infant-Infections-to-Cardiovascular-Disease.shtml

47 “The establishment work and infrastructure for the BIS was provided by the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), Deakin University, and Barwon Health. Subsequent funding was secured from National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC), The Shepherd Foundation, The Jack Brockhoff Foundation, the Scobie & Claire McKinnon Trust, the Shane O’Brien Memorial Asthma Foundation, the Our Women’s Our Children’s Fund Raising Committee Barwon Health, the Rotary Club of Geelong, the Minderoo Foundation, the Ilhan Food Allergy Foundation, GMHBA, Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd, and the Percy Baxter Charitable Trust, Perpetual Trustees. In-kind support was provided by the Cotton On Foundation and CreativeForce. The study sponsors were not involved in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication. Research at MCRI is supported by the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program. This work was also supported by NHMRC Senior Research Fellowships to ALP (1008396); DB (1064629); and RS (1045161) , NHMRC Investigator Grants to ALP (1110200) and DB (1175744), NHMRC-A*STAR project grant (1149047). TM is supported by an MCRI ECR Fellowship. SB is supported by the Dutch Research Council (452173113).”

48 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1038411890102700

49

Brief thoughts about thinking

50 Collected works of one of the 100 (Salomo Friedlaender, in book pp. 8–10) has the alleged German version with footnote: “source undetermined”. https://books.google.com/books?id=IvRx-34xGmwC&ots=DC-3u4YbrP&pg=PA43&dq=%22Warum%20einhundert%22

51Israel, Hans; Ruckhaber, Erich; Weinmann, Rudolf, et al. Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein. Leipzig: Voigtländer. 1931 https://archive.org/details/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#A_Hundred_Authors_Against_Einstein

52 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-Einstein/Nazi-backlash-and-coming-to-America

53 Calaprice, Alice. The ultimate quotable Einstein. 2011, Princeton University Press. Princeton NJ USA, pg. 170
https://books.google.com/books?id=G_iziBAPXtEC&pg=170

54 Baker, M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. 25 May 2016 Nature 533, 452–454 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a

55

https://nickvujicic.com/

56 Edmondson AC, Business failures. Strategies for Learning from Failure. Harvard Business Review (April 2011) Reprint: R1104B
https://hbr.org/2011/04/strategies-for-learning-from-failure

57 https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1036329

58 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time-the-latest-nobel-proves-it#xj4y7vzkg

59 Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33

60 https://www.bitchute.com/video/apC8UrSllmki/

61 Gardner, C. L., & Ryman, K. D. (2010). Yellow fever: a reemerging threat. 4 Mar 2015 Clinics in laboratory medicine, 30(1), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2010.01.001

Ravenel, Mazÿck P. Carlos Finlay and Yellow Fever. 1 Dec 1940 American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health,. 30 (no. 12), pp. 1478–1479 Published Online: 29 Aug 2011 https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.30.12.1478

Faerstein, Eduardoa; Winkelstein, Warren Jr, Carlos Juan Finlay, Rejected, Respected, and Right, Epidemiology: January 2010 - Vol 21 - Issue 1 - p 158 https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c308e0

Carlos J. Finlay (1833-1915) student of yellow fever. JAMA. 1966;198(11):1210–11. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1966.03110240118043

Chaves-Carballo, Enrique, Carlos Finlay and Yellow Fever: Triumph over Adversity, October 2005, Military Medicine, Vol. 170, 10; p. 881 https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/170/10/881/4577690

62 https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-tenure-position-mainly-depends-on-how-successful-in-obtaining-research-grant

63 https://www.dailywire.com/news/fauci-collins-shared-in-secret-nih-royalties-totaling-350m-watchdog-report

64 https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/difference.html

65 https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/pubmedvsgooglescholar

66 Van Noorden, R. Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival. 2016 Nature. 540 (7633): 325–326. Bibcode:2016Natur.540..325V. https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature.2016.21131

Gray, E. Comparison of Journal Citation Reports and Scopus Impact Factors for Ecology and Environmental Sciences Journals. 2008

https://doi.org/10.5062%2FF4FF3Q9G

67 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CiteScore

68

https://i4oc.org/

69

https://www.scimagojr.com

70 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenfactor

71 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCImago_Journal_Rank

72 Brembs, Björn (2018). "Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 12: 37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037

73 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking

74 https://c19early.com/dtmeta.html

75 Cameron, William Bruce. Informal Sociology (1963). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05004-4

76 https://www.catholic365.com/article/26130/dog-beats-artificial-intelligence.html

Another example, for every canonization of a Saint of the Catholic Church, there’s a requirement of reliable medical records for a miraculous healing, which can’t be explained by science at all: cancer, near complete destruction of the brain in a car accident, seeing without a working eye, recovering an amputated leg, etc.

77 https://news.rice.edu/news/2015/first-worldwide-survey-religion-and-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

78 Movie Review: After Death https://www.catholic365.com/article/32264/movie-review-after-death.html

Scientific proof of God and the soul: http://www.catholic365.com/article/26227/scientific-proof-of-god-and-the-immortal-soul.html

Scientific proof of religion: https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-really-happens-after-we-die/answers/46502105

What do you believe comes after death? https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-believe-comes-after-death/answer/Federico-A-Nazar

https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-really-happens-after-we-die/answers/46502105

Which Christian denomination is more Biblical? https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-true-Christianity-Protestantism-or-Catholicism/answer/Federico-A-Nazar

79 Why aren't atheists convinced by miracles which happened, and are scientifically proven?

https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-atheists-convinced-by-miracles-which-happened-and-are-scientifically-proven/answer/Federico-A-Nazar