An extraordinary experiment on mice and leaves from two different plant species has uncovered direct physical evidence of an eerie ‘biophoton’ phenomenon ceasing on death, suggesting all living things – including humans – could literally glow with health, until we don’t.
that the euphemistically-named “gender-affirming care” is scientifically bankrupt, don’t you?
While it may sound jarring to readers who have, reasonably, deferred to U.S. medical societies and civil rights advocacy groups on this issue, there is no longer any legitimate scientific controversy about the weak evidence underlying the purported benefits of the “gender affirming” model for youth. Readers may also be surprised to learn that the first countries to restrict these practices were politically progressive Finland and Sweden, whose socialized health care systems are widely admired. It was these Scandinavian social democracies—not U.S. red states—that were first to conduct systematic reviews and conclude there is no reliable evidence supporting pediatric medical transition. Finland sharply restricted the practice in 2020, followed by Sweden in 2022. The U.K. was next, and other nations are pulling back, too.
…the [scientific] review concludes that the harms of pediatric medical transition far outweigh the unproven mental health benefits.
Aaaand, there it is! NO agency is going to issue malpractice insurance covering this now. The whole “Sexually mutilate kids for profit and political gain” gig is dead, dead, dead! It’s over. Our long moral nightmare is over. Their’s, however, will never end…
Unfortunately, a lot of kids were permanently damaged. Their nightmare will never end. This shift is indeed welcomed, but is cold comfort for them. And just so you know, there WILL be lawsuits. Lots of them. Against surgeons, psychologists, and hospitals.
As we’ve seen several times in the past, this ends in liability suits and malpractice insurance companies unwilling to bear the risk at any price!
Some things are easier to come back from than others…
are just sick of being lied to. And it’s too bad. Good science is a pretty reliable bedrock of knowledge. Not logically flawless, but pretty dang good.
But bad science is just a 3-card monty scam. And it spoils what could otherwise be a dependable source of knowledge by destroying people’s trust in science and scientists.
I disagree in that some of those items could be just honest mistakes. Science, when done well, is like a bikini–it shows much that is interesting while concealing that which is essential.
But some of those are just damnable and self-serving lies.
surprised. I personally have had my faith strengthened by my scientific endeavors. The more I learned about stats, probability, science, logic, and human nature, the more devout I became.
There IS a sense of wonder that one gets when looking carefully at the world and at humanity. And it is utterly irrational and contrary to the known facts to chalk that all up to random action. It simply won’t work. Plus, there is a beauty aspect of the whole thing that hardly seems random. Sometimes, no matter how hard-bitten you are, you just get overcome by the beauty of what you are seeing.
Research shows that far from diminishing spiritual longing, science may actually awaken it. For many scientists, the lab is not just a place of logic, but a portal to wonder and a deeper search for meaning.
The idea that science and spirituality are incompatible is a relatively recent one. In past ages, people doing science thought they were engaged in a sort of theology, seeing how God worked. Posing science as contrary to spirituality is a new thing–it was not there originally.
Yet many scientists “see no tension whatsoever between spiritual experience and scientific inquiry,” said Kanwal. “Scientific pursuit is a way to ground our human experiences in a natural order that pervades the universe we live in.”
wrong. But was it deliberately wrong? 🤨
I’m not sure. No, not everyone deliberately did this…
vaccines are safe. Of course, that doesn’t include the COVID vaccine–that is neither a vaccine nor safe.
But real vaccines have come out well, and in studies with HUGE sample sizes. And NO link to Autism. As I have said for a year, I think it is quite clear that autism and vaccines are linked in time, because everyone gets them at around two years, which is why both are observed occur contemporaneously. But they’re not causally related. The relationship is merely temporal.
A massive, 24-year-long study of more than 1.2 million children provides reassurance to parents around the world.
The research has found no compelling evidence that childhood vaccines lead to autism, asthma, or dozens of other chronic disorders. [emphasis in original]
Oh, and aluminum salts? Nope. Not a sausage.
Researchers in Denmark examined the safety of a specific vaccine ingredient – aluminum salts – which, despite frequent debunking, remains a common talking point among vaccine skeptics. Clinical trials have tested their safety extensively, and they’ve been used in non-live vaccines for more than 70 years to boost the immune system’s response to lower doses of medicine.
I don’t think we will ever get universal agreement, but I think from a purely scientific perspective the data are in. People are, of course, free to do whatever they want. But this study is pretty dang persuasive.
Vance is entirely correct. But it is perhaps even worse in the Psychology world, where many of the seminal, grounding studies such as the Stanford Prison experiment and the Milgram shock experiments have been revealed as total scientific frauds. Many, if not most of the important grounding experiments in Psychology simply can’t be reproduced. 🤨
Yet this is basic Psych 101 fodder. And I have taught Psych 101 several times and talked about those studies as if they were true! Boy, am I feeling betrayed…
So yes, biology has some rather gruesome violations of scientific method. Fraud. But they are not the only ones. Maybe not even the worst ones in some ways.
Here’s what Grok says:
Biology does face reproducibility challenges, with studies showing replication rates as low as 10-40% in areas like cancer research. A 2016 Nature survey found 77% of biologists failed to replicate others’ experiments, higher than in physics or medicine. Publication bias, complex systems, and low statistical power contribute…
And while Grok really doesn’t want to call it “fraud,” and works hard to make it seem innocent enough, it says “it”fraud in Psychology” in a nice way and admits that there is a “reproducibility crisis:”
… psychology’s seminal studies do face a reproducibility crisis… In psychology, this issue has been particularly evident with influential studies like the Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram’s obedience study, which have faced challenges in replication due to methodological flaws and other concerns.
In short, those studies are total BS…
the 1940s astrophysicist Fred Hoyle was one incensed atheist in regard to this model. He derisively referred to the theory as “The Big Bang.” The name stuck, but (to Hoyle’s dismay) without any irony at all.
Hoyle was angry because the theory first put forth by the Catholic priest LeMaître in the 1920s was VERY Theistic–unavoidably so. If there WAS a beginning, some kind of agent had to get things rolling. SOMEONE had to command, “Let there be light.”
And then there was the Doppler shift that supported it. Then the cosmic background radiation pretty much sealed the deal.
The Big bang is inherently Theistic (or at the very least Deistic). And Fred Hoyle very clearly saw that and objected. Even today, atheistic cosmologists just HATE the unavoidable implications of the theory. Hence the rash of “steady state” and “multiverse” and “many worlds” theories, whose main virtue is not requiring God, like “The Big Bang.”
Significantly, the standard model holds that all space, matter, energy, and time suddenly came into existence — from nothing — with the Big Bang. This means that whatever brought the Big Bang about is beyond space and time, immaterial [ed. I don’t think that necessarily is demanded], personal (this being made a decision to create), and unbelievably powerful. Of course, this is an excellent description of many of the attributes of God.
Science does not “disprove” God. Quite the opposite. And many legendary scientists of yesteryear (like Newton) were staunch theists. It was only at the beginning of the 1900s that “science” became synonymous with “atheist. But there is no logical reason that demands that–it’s all culture.
But after over the last 100 years or so, the pendulum is starting to swing back…
a friend gave me is spot-on: Have a different scientific journal that ONLY publishes experiment reports that have been independently replicated.
It’s a great idea. Of course, “Big Science” (including drug-makers) will never allow such a thing. There is a lot of money to be made in encouraging (though perhaps false results. A ton. There would just be no funding for such an endeavor.
Years ago I wrote an experiment for a vaunted drug combination. It was summarily rejected by the drug company. Why? Because it had an active placebo arm, so the variance due to that factor would be subtracted from the drug effect size. They should have listened to me. The drug combo? Phen-fen.
this is just random statistical variance? Of course it isn’t! ANY blamed fool can see that this is NOT a random distribution.
So given that this is actually measuring something and is not just “random statistical noise,” what is your explanation as to what is happening? Why did rates of transgenderism explode? It sure doesn’t look random. At all.
I mean, are you saying that it was always there but was just not picked up and measured? Or has something in the culture changed that explains the spike? Why are we seeing it now when we never did before?
Because the numbers don’t lie–and only a great fool would say that this is just random variance. So what is the explanation?