Mar 18, 2023·edited Mar 18, 2023Liked by James Lyons-Weiler
This is completely off topic:
THANK YOU MR Lyons -Weiler in providing this information free from subscription. Many others are moving into a restricted subscription model which outwardly appears a mild form of discrimination, which was NOT the original intent of the internet.
You and other like you who post on Substack without subscription or who post the entire Stack a week later for those who don’t subscribe ….are greatly appreciated
Fauci was the High Priest, acting as if he were infallible. The whole of western medicine and science bowed to him and kissed his ring. And en masse, they silenced dissenting voices, letting people’s lungs “burn.”
Nobody who eventually sees the truth will ever trust science again. We should NEVER have “trusted” science. Trusting is an act of faith, and has no place in the scientific method.
Blinded peer review makes so much sense and I don't understand why upstanding journals wouldn't do the peer review process this way. There is so much bias that stating a journal is peer reviewed really means nothing. As a Phd student (hopefully candidate within several weeks) I am interested in how to make this happen.
Dr Jack I’m jealous of this perfectly written sub-stack, I will steal these quotes from you time to time when posting my dismay and disappointment in the state of affairs we are in with the medical and science institutions , I am definitely copying this and putting in my archives for future references thank you so much for this post as it puts into perspective of the chaos we have gone through the past years “ especially the last 3 years” and will repost .
If it were just science and the regulators that had been captured that would be bad enough, but PhRMA has captured the media, the social media, the politicians the educational establishment and every other source of social and economic influence. You can't fix science if education and the media are also in the tank. How do you fight everyone and everything at once?
My opinion is that science is currently “practiced” by private enterprise and universities, public and private. When science is in service to profit, it is most at risk of corruption and misunderstanding. The current American model of science for drugs et al intended for the public is one of privacy from the public. Once a new drug or chemical is in search of govt. acceptance and approval, the science should be made public. And the govt. agency tasked with approving the drug/chemical should make its investigation public. This includes medicines and industrial/agricultural products like glyphosate. If science is subject to patent or copyright protection, then the data should be public after it has been vetted by the agency. Govt. agencies tasked with acceptance and/or approval must be qualified to do so, and that qualification should be public. No laws should intefere with the above discussion of making private science public.
While my immediate concern is the pharmaceutical products called “vaccines”, our efforts should not be limited to them.
I am opposed to taxpayer funding of scientific research for private profit. Taxpayer funding is only appropriate for public profit, or some shared public-private profit.
Any science-based product should be subjct to liability for its developers. Liability is the threat ensuring proper methodology is used to guarantee safety to the product users, both direct (as consumers) and indirect (as in the case of environmental contamination).
Is online science education for adults, or any age student, practicable? How could I have learned chemistry without hands-on practice in a lab? Yes, you can watch someone do something on camera, but you must be able to do it yourself in reality (hands on). You observe color and odor and the ephemeral nature of some substances.
Science training for K-12 needs a redo. What is possible to teach students at any age and level? How can it be taught without a significant investment in equipment? Can we show students how the earliest scientific discoveries were made, and in such a way that the student can repeat it? If special equipment is needed, can it be used by students who do not routinely have access to the premises?
In addition, liberal politics needs to be moved from academia. Academia has become so far left-leaning and opposed to people of faith that conservative people of faith are being driven out. Contrary to popular belief, there are some excellent scientists that are Christians with conservative political values. I had a conversation with a promising PhD graduate this week that echoed that sentiment. Good scientists are being driven out, not because of the persecution, but because liberal politics are taking precedent over objective science.
Science is dead. That’s a fundamental first principle. You must now evolve into the superset or decay away within the old insanity.
Notorious "Virus Pusher Against Clotshots" James Lyons-Weiler demands that we "restore science to protect public health".
Ah hahahaha! 😂🤣
Thanks for giving me my first belly laugh of the day!
This is completely off topic:
THANK YOU MR Lyons -Weiler in providing this information free from subscription. Many others are moving into a restricted subscription model which outwardly appears a mild form of discrimination, which was NOT the original intent of the internet.
You and other like you who post on Substack without subscription or who post the entire Stack a week later for those who don’t subscribe ….are greatly appreciated
Please don't overextend the definition of "toxin".
Fauci was the High Priest, acting as if he were infallible. The whole of western medicine and science bowed to him and kissed his ring. And en masse, they silenced dissenting voices, letting people’s lungs “burn.”
Nobody who eventually sees the truth will ever trust science again. We should NEVER have “trusted” science. Trusting is an act of faith, and has no place in the scientific method.
Blinded peer review makes so much sense and I don't understand why upstanding journals wouldn't do the peer review process this way. There is so much bias that stating a journal is peer reviewed really means nothing. As a Phd student (hopefully candidate within several weeks) I am interested in how to make this happen.
This is a great and foundational piece James. Thank you
Science was proving the theories of free thinkers.
Science and data are reduced to being based on math.
Math is now racist so Science is racist.
Science is now a religion.
Religions are cults. Cults do not tolerate free thinkers.
Dr Jack I’m jealous of this perfectly written sub-stack, I will steal these quotes from you time to time when posting my dismay and disappointment in the state of affairs we are in with the medical and science institutions , I am definitely copying this and putting in my archives for future references thank you so much for this post as it puts into perspective of the chaos we have gone through the past years “ especially the last 3 years” and will repost .
sincerely Eric
If it were just science and the regulators that had been captured that would be bad enough, but PhRMA has captured the media, the social media, the politicians the educational establishment and every other source of social and economic influence. You can't fix science if education and the media are also in the tank. How do you fight everyone and everything at once?
Being anti-*scientism* is always a good stance. Being anti-*science* is not.
My opinion is that science is currently “practiced” by private enterprise and universities, public and private. When science is in service to profit, it is most at risk of corruption and misunderstanding. The current American model of science for drugs et al intended for the public is one of privacy from the public. Once a new drug or chemical is in search of govt. acceptance and approval, the science should be made public. And the govt. agency tasked with approving the drug/chemical should make its investigation public. This includes medicines and industrial/agricultural products like glyphosate. If science is subject to patent or copyright protection, then the data should be public after it has been vetted by the agency. Govt. agencies tasked with acceptance and/or approval must be qualified to do so, and that qualification should be public. No laws should intefere with the above discussion of making private science public.
While my immediate concern is the pharmaceutical products called “vaccines”, our efforts should not be limited to them.
I am opposed to taxpayer funding of scientific research for private profit. Taxpayer funding is only appropriate for public profit, or some shared public-private profit.
Any science-based product should be subjct to liability for its developers. Liability is the threat ensuring proper methodology is used to guarantee safety to the product users, both direct (as consumers) and indirect (as in the case of environmental contamination).
Is online science education for adults, or any age student, practicable? How could I have learned chemistry without hands-on practice in a lab? Yes, you can watch someone do something on camera, but you must be able to do it yourself in reality (hands on). You observe color and odor and the ephemeral nature of some substances.
Science training for K-12 needs a redo. What is possible to teach students at any age and level? How can it be taught without a significant investment in equipment? Can we show students how the earliest scientific discoveries were made, and in such a way that the student can repeat it? If special equipment is needed, can it be used by students who do not routinely have access to the premises?
Hypocritical much, James? You've defended the blatant pseudoscience of virology all along.
In addition, liberal politics needs to be moved from academia. Academia has become so far left-leaning and opposed to people of faith that conservative people of faith are being driven out. Contrary to popular belief, there are some excellent scientists that are Christians with conservative political values. I had a conversation with a promising PhD graduate this week that echoed that sentiment. Good scientists are being driven out, not because of the persecution, but because liberal politics are taking precedent over objective science.