I am disillusioned and have lost respect for too many once respected voices.
I recently finished Dr. Mary Newport's book, "Alzheimer's: What if there was a cure?" She published it in 2011. It is as valid and current now as when it was published. Her experiences trying to help her husband, and what she learned are important. The first part of the book details her personal experience trying to get her husband help. When she stumbled onto a way to help him that actually seemed to work, she was blocked time and again by the Alzheimer's Association.
The researchers she eventually connected with had trouble getting funding because their work would not have enriched any pharmaceutical company.
Aug 23, 2022·edited Aug 23, 2022Liked by Heather Heying
The amount of distress this causes me is beyond easy description. From my 'tweens on, "science" has been my rock. The solid foundation of my belief system. To realize that it has become a game, that can be "gamed" to greater rewards than come to people doing actual, replicatable science is a shock. It bodes ill for any society that lets it happen. Far worse (although possibly related to) than Dr. Edward Dutton's proliferation of "spiteful mutants". Not everyone agrees that the loss of religious faith in modern times is such a bad thing, but I can't see that the loss of the Scientific Method to data manipulation can bring anything but a bad end to the society that it happens to.
Aug 23, 2022·edited Aug 23, 2022Liked by Heather Heying
I’ve just finished your book and I’m looking forward to re reading it (likely more than once). It’s excellent! I’m so grateful to have discovered “DarkHorse” way back when it was first launched, and for the education (and laughter) you and Bret have so generously shared. Thank you!
In light of all of this COVID nonsense and trying to make sense of what's going on, I've become a bit disillusioned for the fact that I think bad science is happening on all sides, even among COVID zealots and COVID critics. It sort of tells me that not many people are taking the time to analyze some of the studies they're citing, with one of the most notable ones being this Icelandic study suggesting that vaccines are leading to higher reinfection among the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated. I pointed out so many problems with this study and yet it was touted as a absolute truth by so many:
A pretty recent (relatively recent) study that has come under heavy scrutiny was the study about certain bacteria using arsenic rather than phosphorus as a building block for molecules, and last year two additional studies came out refuting these claims. It was highly controversial, yet was spread worldwide when the study first came out.
I think this is a growing problem as science tries to be more appealing and more hip. It's like science can't market itself on its own merits and studies, and instead has to make it appear so appealing, hence such websites as I "F*ing Love Science" which takes science and presents it in a manner that one would only find fitting for websites such as Buzzfeed. It's why abstracts and titles are so misleading as they are generally the only points of contact that the public, and especially science reporters, make with the actual study.
I've actually wondered if science itself should have an audit of science, in a sense that scientists should look back on older studies that serve as the bedrock for modern fields and try to replicate/reproduce their findings. I think we'd be surprised to find out that many of these studies were either tenuous or had their findings grossly exaggerated.
On that note, another thing I have seen propped up but have been rather critical of was Original Antigenic Sin, and Brian Mowrey of Unglossed has done a great job of essentially auditing the work of Francis and colleagues who brought forth the idea of OAS. We have to keep in mind that OAS came at a time when not much was known about the immune system- no knowledge of memory B cells or T cells were around at the time, which meant researchers just knew "of" antibodies and worked their findings around this concept alone.
Well, at this point I can't quite remember where I was going with this post, but I suppose I will end it by saying that science has done itself no favors in the way it presents itself. Science needs to be grounded, it needs to be real, and sometimes that means it sacrifices the "wow" factor for transparency. One great thing COVID has done is that it allowed people a window into the field of science, but since most of these studies have not been peer-reviewed we have to kind of take on the role of being editors/peer-reviewers, and I think it's that aspect that many of us on both sides fail to grasp and leads to the over extrapolation that I fear is becoming a big issue.
I reread this while I ate my lunch. I kept thinking of 'the Dr.' Fauci. I came here not for what you know Heather, which is alot!, but for *how* you think. Somehow proprioceptively? A concept I picked up from David Bohm.
When you know the team is under pressure to get a product, already late, out to the market
When the reading you are observing has sufficient noise that you wouldn't be faulted for recording a positive result, even if you could just as easily record a fail.
It's easy to give in to the moment and let your bias creep in - even if this product keeps an air plane in the air, or a reactor under control.
Not terribly impressed that you've deleted one of my comments. Rather gutless, rather hypocritical to be throwing stones at those being "science-ish" and then refusing to address evidence of your own "malfeasance" on that score.
Others may wish to consider my further elaborations on that point in your Audio post:
"We are faced with a breakdown of general social order and human values that threatens stability [and survival] throughout the world. Existing knowledge cannot meet this challenge. Something much deeper is needed, a completely new approach. I am suggesting that the very means by which we try to solve our problems is the problem. The source of our problems is within the structure of thought itself."
~ David Bohm (1981)
***
NOTHING will change fundamentally, until we fundamentally change the way we perceive and treat children. Until then, we will continue to see childhood adversity re-enacted upon EVERY aspect of society.
Furthermore, childhood adversity more often than not consists of imposing utterly INSANE societal standards of "normalcy" on children, to which they MUST conform, in order to survive, at a time when they are too young to understand and reject the madness being imposed on them.
The "masses" are essentially clueless and unaware of their own conditioning...
***
“The total neglect or trivialization of the childhood factor operative in the context of violence and the way it evolves in early infancy sometimes leads to explanations that are not only unconvincing and abortive but actively deflect attention away from the genuine roots of violence."
At my school in the early 90's, a first physics professor measured the results of his own experiment using a detector designed and built by a second physics professor.
The first professor detected and published what were perceived as scientifically significant results, bringing some significant attention to his work.
Statistical significance (as opposed to perceived scientific significance), while present, was marginal because the effect size detected was a little too close to the resolution/sensitivity/noise rejection limit of the detector.
So the second professor designed and built a new detector with about 1000x the sensitivity/noise rejection of the original. When it was offered, the first professor declined to use it. At the time I left school, the second professor was building his own copy of the first's experimental apparatus to run the confirmatory experiments himself.
Science is hardly immune to corruption, especially in areas that cannot practically or are not even attempted to be replicated (such as due to lack of interest, lack of resources, lack of courage to challenge the orthodoxy, or whatever else).
I am disillusioned and have lost respect for too many once respected voices.
I recently finished Dr. Mary Newport's book, "Alzheimer's: What if there was a cure?" She published it in 2011. It is as valid and current now as when it was published. Her experiences trying to help her husband, and what she learned are important. The first part of the book details her personal experience trying to get her husband help. When she stumbled onto a way to help him that actually seemed to work, she was blocked time and again by the Alzheimer's Association.
The researchers she eventually connected with had trouble getting funding because their work would not have enriched any pharmaceutical company.
It's all so sad.
The amount of distress this causes me is beyond easy description. From my 'tweens on, "science" has been my rock. The solid foundation of my belief system. To realize that it has become a game, that can be "gamed" to greater rewards than come to people doing actual, replicatable science is a shock. It bodes ill for any society that lets it happen. Far worse (although possibly related to) than Dr. Edward Dutton's proliferation of "spiteful mutants". Not everyone agrees that the loss of religious faith in modern times is such a bad thing, but I can't see that the loss of the Scientific Method to data manipulation can bring anything but a bad end to the society that it happens to.
I’ve been waiting for this post. Thank you.
I’ve just finished your book and I’m looking forward to re reading it (likely more than once). It’s excellent! I’m so grateful to have discovered “DarkHorse” way back when it was first launched, and for the education (and laughter) you and Bret have so generously shared. Thank you!
Excellently written. Thank you.
This post is very timely Heather.
In light of all of this COVID nonsense and trying to make sense of what's going on, I've become a bit disillusioned for the fact that I think bad science is happening on all sides, even among COVID zealots and COVID critics. It sort of tells me that not many people are taking the time to analyze some of the studies they're citing, with one of the most notable ones being this Icelandic study suggesting that vaccines are leading to higher reinfection among the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated. I pointed out so many problems with this study and yet it was touted as a absolute truth by so many:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2794886
https://moderndiscontent.substack.com/p/evidence-of-higher-reinfection-among
A pretty recent (relatively recent) study that has come under heavy scrutiny was the study about certain bacteria using arsenic rather than phosphorus as a building block for molecules, and last year two additional studies came out refuting these claims. It was highly controversial, yet was spread worldwide when the study first came out.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/120709-arsenic-space-nasa-science-felisa-wolfe-simon
I think this is a growing problem as science tries to be more appealing and more hip. It's like science can't market itself on its own merits and studies, and instead has to make it appear so appealing, hence such websites as I "F*ing Love Science" which takes science and presents it in a manner that one would only find fitting for websites such as Buzzfeed. It's why abstracts and titles are so misleading as they are generally the only points of contact that the public, and especially science reporters, make with the actual study.
I've actually wondered if science itself should have an audit of science, in a sense that scientists should look back on older studies that serve as the bedrock for modern fields and try to replicate/reproduce their findings. I think we'd be surprised to find out that many of these studies were either tenuous or had their findings grossly exaggerated.
On that note, another thing I have seen propped up but have been rather critical of was Original Antigenic Sin, and Brian Mowrey of Unglossed has done a great job of essentially auditing the work of Francis and colleagues who brought forth the idea of OAS. We have to keep in mind that OAS came at a time when not much was known about the immune system- no knowledge of memory B cells or T cells were around at the time, which meant researchers just knew "of" antibodies and worked their findings around this concept alone.
https://unglossed.substack.com/p/oas-review-timeline
Well, at this point I can't quite remember where I was going with this post, but I suppose I will end it by saying that science has done itself no favors in the way it presents itself. Science needs to be grounded, it needs to be real, and sometimes that means it sacrifices the "wow" factor for transparency. One great thing COVID has done is that it allowed people a window into the field of science, but since most of these studies have not been peer-reviewed we have to kind of take on the role of being editors/peer-reviewers, and I think it's that aspect that many of us on both sides fail to grasp and leads to the over extrapolation that I fear is becoming a big issue.
I reread this while I ate my lunch. I kept thinking of 'the Dr.' Fauci. I came here not for what you know Heather, which is alot!, but for *how* you think. Somehow proprioceptively? A concept I picked up from David Bohm.
Again great piece.
Been there. Honesty is tough
Removing yourself from the observation...
When you know what the pass fail criteria are
When you know the team is under pressure to get a product, already late, out to the market
When the reading you are observing has sufficient noise that you wouldn't be faulted for recording a positive result, even if you could just as easily record a fail.
It's easy to give in to the moment and let your bias creep in - even if this product keeps an air plane in the air, or a reactor under control.
If you can't handle it, get a different job.
Per footnote 9, "Pointing out that the emperor has no clothes" should be "Pointing out that the transwoman has no womb".
Not terribly impressed that you've deleted one of my comments. Rather gutless, rather hypocritical to be throwing stones at those being "science-ish" and then refusing to address evidence of your own "malfeasance" on that score.
Others may wish to consider my further elaborations on that point in your Audio post:
https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/on-fraud-audio-edition/comment/8602034
Stay tuned for my own Substack post on the topic, including various screenshots for posterity - "j'accuse", indeed.
The corruption of Big Science is enabled by Big Brother capture and collusion with Big Industry.
MONEY HAS REPLACED HUMAN VALUES
"We are faced with a breakdown of general social order and human values that threatens stability [and survival] throughout the world. Existing knowledge cannot meet this challenge. Something much deeper is needed, a completely new approach. I am suggesting that the very means by which we try to solve our problems is the problem. The source of our problems is within the structure of thought itself."
~ David Bohm (1981)
***
NOTHING will change fundamentally, until we fundamentally change the way we perceive and treat children. Until then, we will continue to see childhood adversity re-enacted upon EVERY aspect of society.
Furthermore, childhood adversity more often than not consists of imposing utterly INSANE societal standards of "normalcy" on children, to which they MUST conform, in order to survive, at a time when they are too young to understand and reject the madness being imposed on them.
The "masses" are essentially clueless and unaware of their own conditioning...
***
“The total neglect or trivialization of the childhood factor operative in the context of violence and the way it evolves in early infancy sometimes leads to explanations that are not only unconvincing and abortive but actively deflect attention away from the genuine roots of violence."
~ Alice Miller
Full article 👇🏼
http://psychohistory.com/articles/the-political-consequences-of-child-abuse/
~*~
THE CHILDREN’S FIRE ...
"What kind of a society is it, that does NOT place the Children's Fire at the very centre of its institutions of power?
It's an INSANE society!"
~ Tim "Mac" Macartney
#TheChildrensFire
Please Watch this Video presentation:
https://youtu.be/1JchSac-VP0
~*~
http://psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-2-why-males-are-more-violent/
~*~
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/dissolving-my-vaxxed-illusions?s=r
~*~
At my school in the early 90's, a first physics professor measured the results of his own experiment using a detector designed and built by a second physics professor.
The first professor detected and published what were perceived as scientifically significant results, bringing some significant attention to his work.
Statistical significance (as opposed to perceived scientific significance), while present, was marginal because the effect size detected was a little too close to the resolution/sensitivity/noise rejection limit of the detector.
So the second professor designed and built a new detector with about 1000x the sensitivity/noise rejection of the original. When it was offered, the first professor declined to use it. At the time I left school, the second professor was building his own copy of the first's experimental apparatus to run the confirmatory experiments himself.
Science is hardly immune to corruption, especially in areas that cannot practically or are not even attempted to be replicated (such as due to lack of interest, lack of resources, lack of courage to challenge the orthodoxy, or whatever else).
Excellent!