I didn’t say the tools that science uses are dead. I said Science is dead. Science is an axiomatic container (humans have created many axiomatic domains to hold fragmented data) required to hold all the crap and gold dug up by humans primitive understandings of their equally axiomatic incubation chamber which is also evolving. Science is dead. It has been on its death thralls for over 2 centuries. Now we evolve the game or die. This is a fundamental first principle certainty.
Add a trademark symbol - Science™? Anyone of rational mind can do science following the scientific method (verification requires a little help), but not the big government or corporate forms of it.
The preponderance of evidence disagrees with your opinion. So it’s definitely wrong. But hey, banks are fine, bioweapons are fine, globalist colluding in lockstep against all peoples for power and control is fine, FTX is fine, war is fine, corruption is fine, the whole set of sub systems are fine. It’s the bad peoples fault. You need to detach from your domain and realize the reality.
And you’re one of the band members on the titanic that continues to play on while it inevitably sinks, refusing to accept its time is up. But that’s ok, everyone has to learn somehow. I’ll learn and innovate with data backed evidence that nature and history has provided in plentiful abundance.
Look at Khepri! Wow! Calling all science dead while preserving the integrity of the tools of science then directly telling a science tool user it's a waste to continue using the tools you believe in.
Where does everyone sign up for your TED talks? You wild, yo.
And thank you for giving me mine. You come here in here and make an ad hominem attack? What an asshole type behavior. Instead of engaging in proper debate and citing evidence you post an insult. You sir are laughable.
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?
Thank you for your opinion. However, the extent of the madness of those who write entire textbooks on Virology, who conduct their entire professional careers, and the databases filled with millions of sequences, and many, many other lines of evidence remain be explained by virus deniers. See https://binged.it/3lxTq7A
Incorrect. Therein lies onr fatal flaw. You refuse to explain all of the positive evidence you reject, and pretend the evidence doesn't exist. There is no coherence to your logic.
Have you read and debunked the thousands of studies I have sent you yet? By ignoring the evidence you demand, you impeach any of the following: you ability to use logic, your motives, your ability to understand science. I'll take any 2 out 3.
Your analogy is non sequitur. None of the Santa Claus books are meant as sincere academic exercises. Again your logic is weak and nearly incomprehensible. And your citation of Santa Claus books to disprove the entire contents of all virology books ever written is an example of the ludicrous non-logical "evidence" you use.
No it's not. Internet search results for books about "viruses" are not proof of "viruses".
How the books are meant is entirely beside the point. Intentions aren't science or proof of viruses. And I didn't use the existence Santa Claus books to disprove anything. I used it to show how silly your approach to "science" is. Anyone can follow that logic. Enough of the gaslighting and attempts to reverse the burden of proof. Cite a study if you can.
There are assumptions underlying the field of virology, just like in any other field. Anything that is built on those assumptions may appear to have solidity & rationality. It is only when one spends the time to knock down the building that one can see or understand the foundations. OK, so it's a poor analogy, but if you can, try to spend some time really questioning virology's underpinnings.
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.
Not "dead" (okay, probably at least 90%), but meretriciously financialized. The scientific principle lives on underground and in Substack.
I didn’t say the tools that science uses are dead. I said Science is dead. Science is an axiomatic container (humans have created many axiomatic domains to hold fragmented data) required to hold all the crap and gold dug up by humans primitive understandings of their equally axiomatic incubation chamber which is also evolving. Science is dead. It has been on its death thralls for over 2 centuries. Now we evolve the game or die. This is a fundamental first principle certainty.
Add a trademark symbol - Science™? Anyone of rational mind can do science following the scientific method (verification requires a little help), but not the big government or corporate forms of it.
Science is fine. Those who cheated and lied were not doing science.
The preponderance of evidence disagrees with your opinion. So it’s definitely wrong. But hey, banks are fine, bioweapons are fine, globalist colluding in lockstep against all peoples for power and control is fine, FTX is fine, war is fine, corruption is fine, the whole set of sub systems are fine. It’s the bad peoples fault. You need to detach from your domain and realize the reality.
You are confusing Scientific fraud with science.
And you’re one of the band members on the titanic that continues to play on while it inevitably sinks, refusing to accept its time is up. But that’s ok, everyone has to learn somehow. I’ll learn and innovate with data backed evidence that nature and history has provided in plentiful abundance.
Look at Khepri! Wow! Calling all science dead while preserving the integrity of the tools of science then directly telling a science tool user it's a waste to continue using the tools you believe in.
Where does everyone sign up for your TED talks? You wild, yo.
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!
And thank you for giving me mine. You come here in here and make an ad hominem attack? What an asshole type behavior. Instead of engaging in proper debate and citing evidence you post an insult. You sir are laughable.
> make an ad hominem attack
Sorry? What's ad hominem? The only thing I said was that JLW is a "Virus Pusher Against Clotshots". That is a demonstrable fact.
> What an asshole type behavior
Hahahaha! Engaging in insults, as you accuse me of such!! Great!
PS: I'm happy to engage JLW in a debate on the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and the Complete Fraud of CONVID any day. I'm WilliamAHuston@protonmail.com
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
You're welcome! And I share gratitude for article sharing and paid subscribers!
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.
Fauci was the cheerleader and a liar. Proving that science is no guarantee against promotion and lies.
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
Thank you, Mike. We can and importantly ARE doing better. We have to support actual science, not whatever those other guys were doing.
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
Feel free to cross-post and use! Thank you!!!
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?
Joel,
1. Gain a supermajority.
2. Rewrite the rules on objectivity, transparency, accountability
3. Rinse and repeat as necessary
Being anti-*scientism* is always a good stance. Being anti-*science* is not.
100%
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?
Thank you for your thoughts! Yes, running a society can be challenging. :)
Hypocritical much, James? You've defended the blatant pseudoscience of virology all along.
Thank you for your opinion. However, the extent of the madness of those who write entire textbooks on Virology, who conduct their entire professional careers, and the databases filled with millions of sequences, and many, many other lines of evidence remain be explained by virus deniers. See https://binged.it/3lxTq7A
It's not opinion, it's fact.
Logic fallacy, much? There are many lines of evidence for Santa Claus too, James. Does that make him real?
Cite actual science if you can, since you claim to be a scientist.
And lol, there is no burden on "virus deniers" to explain anything. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim.
Incorrect. Therein lies onr fatal flaw. You refuse to explain all of the positive evidence you reject, and pretend the evidence doesn't exist. There is no coherence to your logic.
You're reading from the Jay Couey script, I see. No one is denying the existence of:
- sick people
- sequences of unknown provenance
- tiny particles in monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi concoctions
- made-up in silico codes fraudulently labelled as "genomes"
- unnatural animal experiments that don't even have a valid independent variable
- never-validated, impossible-to-validate "tests"
There is no science. Prove me wrong if you can. Cite the science that you rely on and let's go from there.
No, I have not yet reviewed anything by him. Just heard about him today, in fact.
Science sent. You ignored it.
We've already done this.
Have you read and debunked the thousands of studies I have sent you yet? By ignoring the evidence you demand, you impeach any of the following: you ability to use logic, your motives, your ability to understand science. I'll take any 2 out 3.
Lol, you gave a link to internet search results for "virology text book".
Here are the search results for "Santa Claus book", with 2, 230,000 results. It proves that Santa exists, right?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Santa+Claus+book&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=santa+claus+book&sc=10-16&sk=&cvid=39EE76EA4094479DA0B559BE92A65CC6&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=
Your analogy is non sequitur. None of the Santa Claus books are meant as sincere academic exercises. Again your logic is weak and nearly incomprehensible. And your citation of Santa Claus books to disprove the entire contents of all virology books ever written is an example of the ludicrous non-logical "evidence" you use.
No it's not. Internet search results for books about "viruses" are not proof of "viruses".
How the books are meant is entirely beside the point. Intentions aren't science or proof of viruses. And I didn't use the existence Santa Claus books to disprove anything. I used it to show how silly your approach to "science" is. Anyone can follow that logic. Enough of the gaslighting and attempts to reverse the burden of proof. Cite a study if you can.
There are assumptions underlying the field of virology, just like in any other field. Anything that is built on those assumptions may appear to have solidity & rationality. It is only when one spends the time to knock down the building that one can see or understand the foundations. OK, so it's a poor analogy, but if you can, try to spend some time really questioning virology's underpinnings.
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.