Anti-scientific stance

The fraud in

the scientific literature is unbelievable. And quite dangerous! The drive to get published and get tenure may quite literally get people killed.

Anti-scientific stance Bad Faith Dishonesty


Is that so?

“Rather than journals being a wealth of information and opinions about the novel virus, of which we knew so little, they helped establish a party line that literally put a chilling effect on scientific research” on COVID origins and scientific communication, Wenstrup said.

It’s long. Read it all. And weep. Or get angry. Or both.

Anti-scientific stance Epistemology

See, I think Academia

is in some serious trouble. Once people start honestly fact-checking, there is very likely to be many, if not most, researchers who are in fact guilty of Academic fraud. And THAT scares the crap out of Professors!

So Academia as a whole is scared, and rightly so. Because so dang many of them took a scientific shortcut to fame and fortune. Leaving epistemological squalor in their wake.

And it’s not a new thing. No, not by a long shot. I am a psychologist. And MANY of the seminal, ground-breaking experiments at the very heart of psychology were… faked. I learned about them as a student, and taught them myself as a professor. And they were faked–the Stanford Prison experiment, Milgram’s electric shocks, lots of it. And these were bread-and-butter staples of psych 101!

But suddenly people are (rightly) becoming very skeptical. They are (again, rightly) less impressed by credentials, soi-disant expertise, and “scientific findings,” etc. MANY famous studies just can’t be replicated–and you wonder why. Well, I guess we know why now…

And it’s NOT just psychology–that is just what I personally am most familiar with. Nutrition is another area that is more than a bit sketchy in that way. Even some medical “science” is more wish-fulfillment, hide-bound-ness, fear-mongering, and profit-seeking than fact (see: COVID “vaccines”).

The solution? Honest science. Show your work. Independent replication. Time. True peer review. These things are actually in place, it’s just that they have been bastardized, bowdlerized, and corrupted.

I trust reviewed and replicated science. Humans? Not so much…

Anti-scientific stance Gun Control

No, it really

isn’t all that difficult to grasp…

Anti-scientific stance

Well, things

DO change!

Remember when we had to follow the arrows in the grocery store aisles? Gee, I wonder how many lives that saved…

Anti-scientific stance

Know the data.

pay attention to the data. This is NOT about your silly political, anti-scientific hackism!

Anti-scientific stance Pandemic Panic Porn Pimps

Yes, get rid

of this abomination.

Now, finally, the truth about the COVID-19 vaccine is beginning to be made known to the public. It confirms the many previous warnings such as these: herehere, and here.

It’s a research paper entitled “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” that appeared on the internet at the Cureus Journal of Medical Science. The abstract bears your close reading and then re-reading, especially if you are one of the millions of Americans who did what public health gurus like Dr. Anthony Fauci incessantly told us to do and “followed the science.”

… Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders. Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards.

The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted.

Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.

… And change it will because, sooner or later, the families of many of the legions of victims of the COVID-19 vaccine scam are going to find smart trial lawyers who are willing to file the litigation and hold those responsible legally accountable. The jury awards that will follow will dwarf anything seen before. 

Wise attorneys are gonna quickly jump on this train…

Anti-scientific stance Despotism

Kennedy is more than a

bit of a kook, so it pains me to acknowledge that he is absolutely right, here:

Anti-scientific stance Evil Stooooopid!

You know what

they say: Eighth one’s a charm!

Really, AARP? Really?

The lobbying group for older Americans just told its nearly 38 million members to “hustle” for another Covid jab, even if they have already had five boosters.

… Keep in mind that someone who has had “five Covid boosters” has actually received seven mRNA jabs – the initial two-shot primary vaccination regimen, followed by five boosters.

Do I look stupid? No really, do I look stupid?

Anti-scientific stance Epic fail

Wow! An

important finding! Or a very muddled one, at least. Maybe deliberately so…


That’s all? It means that of 100 people who had seasonal flu, 16 died in the next year and a half. (With respect to fatalities, we are talking almost exclusively about an elderly and severely ailing population; not reported is how many died in the next year and a half absent either disease.) Whereas, of 100 who had covid, 24 out of 100 died in the ensuing 18 months.

OK, eight more deaths per 100 after 18 months. And not necessarily related to either the flu or to COVID–they didn’t control for that. And not factored in at all is the exposure to the “vaccine” itself! As a scientific methodologist, I would have been utterly embarrassed to have created such a weak and lame study!

But fine, that result makes some sense (though even so, the effect size is extremely modest–miniscule, even. But then, what do I make of THIS?

Regarding both viruses, patient vaccination status did not affect results.

Huh??? Honestly, I don’t know how to interpret that statement given some of the other results in that study that were reported. Do you?