Tag: science

Darwin was an Anti-Christian Psyop

Not only is the Darwinian – and the Neo-Darwinian – theory of evolution by natural selection completely impossible due to the number of genetic transformations required in limited amounts of time, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that Charles Darwin was nothing more than a fraud, a plagiarist, and the front man for a previously published theory that was popularized in order to cast doubt on Christianity and the Christian worldview:

Dr Mike Sutton, whose book Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism Of Patrick Matthew’s Theory is published by Curtis next Saturday, said: ‘This is the biggest science fraud in history.’

He highlights similarities between key phrases and explanations and cites letters apparently showing Darwin knew Matthew’s work and covered up his debt to his rival.

In one, Darwin’s wife admitted to Matthew that evolution was his ‘original child’, but her husband had nurtured it ‘like his own’.

Dr Sutton said: ‘In 1859 Darwin replicated the theory of evolution by natural selection in Patrick Matthew’s 1831 prior publication. ‘Matthew was the first to coin that phrase to explain the theory, which he called the Natural Process of Selection. Darwin realised he had no choice but to use the same words so he called it the Process of Natural Selection. He shuffled the words and hoped nobody would notice.’

A grain merchant and landowner from Perthshire, Matthew had travelled widely in Europe studying agriculture and forestry.

While claims that Darwin borrowed from Matthew have been aired before, the book contains new evidence, including that when Matthew confronted him, Darwin claimed no one had heard of Matthew or his theory. In fact, according to Dr Sutton, Matthew’s book had been cited and reviewed by Darwin’s friends, colleagues and even his mentors in 30 leading publications. In his own journals, Darwin admits to having read at least five publications in which Matthew’s work featured.

Perhaps most damning is a letter from Darwin’s wife, Emma, written on behalf of her husband.

Dr Sutton said: ‘She wrote claiming Darwin was too ill to write, with a telling line to Matthew. She says, “Darwin is more loyal to your own original child than you were yourself.” If you want an admission, there it is – “Your own original child”.’

Dr Sutton, a winner of the British Journal of Criminality prize as well as chief editor of the Internet Journal Of Criminology, added: ‘All the top Darwinists admit Matthew got there first, but claim nobody read it. Actually, they did.

‘We’ve got Darwin’s lies, replications of text and ideas, independent verifiable facts which, I think, come down in favour of deliberate, knowing fraud.’

Although I knew about the other scientist whose work arguably preceded Darwin’s, Alfred Russell Wallace, the idea that the concept of natural selection had been articulated more than 30 years prior to Darwin’s first publication on the subject struck me as incredible. However, after reviewing a copy of Matthew’s book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, it’s clear that Charles Darwin was the harbinger of the subsequent scientific fraud that was Albert Einstein.

The consequences are now being developed of our deplorable ignorance of, or inattention to, one of the most evident traits of natural history, that vegetables as well as animals are generally liable to an almost unlimited diversification, regulated by climate, soil, nourishment, and new commixture of already formed varieties. In those with which man is most intimate, and where his agency in throwing them from their natural locality and dispositions has brought out this power of diversification in stronger shades, it has been forced upon his notice, as in man himself, in the dog, horse, cow, sheep, poultry,—in the apple, pear, plum, gooseberry, potato, pea, which sport in infinite varieties, differing considerably in size, colour, taste, firmness of texture, period of growth, almost in every recognisable quality. In all these kinds man is influencial in preventing deterioration, by careful selection of the largest or most valuable as breeders; but in timber trees the opposite course has been pursued….

The use of the infinite seedling varieties in the families of plants, even in those in a state of nature, differing in luxuriance of growth and local adaptation, seems to be to give one individual (the strongest best circumstance-suited) superiority over others of its kind around, that it may, by overtopping and smothering them, procure room for full extension, and thus affording, at the same time, a continual selection of the strongest, best circumstance-suited, for reproduction. Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the difference in varieties, particularly in the more domesticated kinds; and even in man himself, the greater uniformity, and more general vigour among savage tribes, is referrible to nearly similar selecting law—the weaker individual sinking under the ill treatment of the stronger, or under the common hardship.

Patrick Matthew, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, 1831

At this point, it’s observably far more reasonable to say “science is fraud” than to seriously propose it as a potential arbiter of truth.

DISCUSS ON SG

Natural Immunity is the Only Immunity

The Covid vaccines are unsafe, ineffective, and literally worse than useless:

A new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds more good news for unvaccinated people who have already had and recovered from Covid.

Anti-spike protein antibodies following Covid infection and recovery seem to persist indefinitely in unvaccinated people, researchers found. People tested 20 months after coronavirus infection had slightly higher levels of antibodies on average than those just after infection.

The authors also found that 99 percent of the 295 unvaccinated people they tested who had a confirmed Covid infection had measurable anti-spike proteins. Nearly all of them also had antibodies to another part of the Sars-Cov-2 virus, the nucleocapsid. People who are vaccinated do not have those nucleocapsid antibodies.

One of the worst things about the vaxxes, besides the adverse effects, is the way in which they destroy natural immunity in those who already had Covid, but were foolish enough to get subsequently, and completely unnecessarily, vaccinated.

DISCUSS ON SG

Ivermectin vs the Vaxx

The conclusive verdict is in courtesy of a very large and peer-reviewed Brazilian study: Ivermectin is, and always was, a much safer and effective approach to combating Covid-19 than the various vaxxines.

Researchers in Brazil found that regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and mortality rates.

The study was conducted in Itajaí, a port city in the state of Santa Catarina, between July and December 2020. Study authors include FLCCC physicians Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and Dr. Pierre Kory. Lead author Dr. Lucy Kerr was approached by the mayor of Itajaí, after the city began to experience a severe outbreak of COVID.

The entire population of Itajaí was invited to participate in the program, which involved a medical visit to compile baseline, personal, demographic, and medical information. In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as a preventative treatment, to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day.

Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects elected to participate: over 70% opted to take ivermectin, and 23% chose not to.

The study found a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate in favor of the group that took ivermectin (3.5% versus 8.2%).

In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Of those who did become infected, two equal-sized, highly matched groups (one that used ivermectin as a prophylaxis and one that did not) were compared. The regular use of preventative ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (0.8% versus 2.6%), and a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (1.6% versus 3.3%).

Meanwhile, a small, non-peer reviewed, but nevertheless informative survey of two high school coaches reveals some remarkable negative consequences for young athletes who are vaccinated:

The two coaches, who spoke to us on condition of anonymity for all involved, retrospectively observed the following of the COVID-vaccinated student athletes, and we report their findings in this retrospective study.

1) None of the vaccinated student athletes are competing up to their own previous level; all are performing worse than in 2020, in the assessments of the two coaches.

2) None of the vaccinated student athletes can endure the same exercise drills for the same amount of time that they used to tolerate prior to vaccination.

3) Recovery from exertion took longer in the vaccinated student athletes than before vaccination and took longer than in the unvaccinated.

4) After the injections, most or all of the vaccinated student athletes talked about one or more of the following reactions after vaccination:

a) chest pain;

b) dizziness;

c) seeing stars;

d) feeling as if they would faint;

e) shortness of breath.

The student athletes talked freely and spontaneously about the above symptoms without anyone taking notes at the time. There was no prompting from coaches about reporting of symptoms.

5) The unvaccinated girls are now beating vaccinated boys in competition, whom they could not do well against last year. This change was unexpected and was considered unusual by the coaches.

So, whatever happened to “trusting the science”?

DISCUSS ON SG

Only Fools Trust Science

Science doesn’t even rise to the level of accuracy attained by gamers playing games:

Apart from a minority of professional gamers, speedrunning is a hobby, and the community is moderated by volunteers. Science is, well, science: a crucially important endeavor that we need to get right, a prestige industry employing hundreds of thousands of paid, dedicated, smart people, submitting their research to journals run by enormously profitable publishing companies.

Perhaps the very status of science is what makes its practitioners reluctant to pursue fraudsters: Not only do scientists find it difficult to imagine that their peers or colleagues could be making up the data, but questioning a suspect data set could result in anything from extended frustration and social awkwardness to the destruction of someone’s career. You can see why so many scientists, who hope for a quiet life where they can pursue their own research, aren’t motivated to grasp the nettle.

But the consequences of ignoring fraud can be drastic too, and whole evidence bases, sometimes for medical treatments, can be polluted by fraudulent studies. The entire purpose of the scientific endeavor is brought into question if its gatekeepers—the reviewers and editors and others who are supposed to be the custodians of scientific probity—are so often presented with evidence of fraud and so often fail to take action.

If unpaid Minecraft mods can produce a 29-page mathematical analysis of Dream’s contested run, then scientists and editors can find the time to treat plausible fraud allegations with the seriousness they deserve. If the maintenance of integrity can become such a crucial interest for a community of gaming hobbyists, then it can be the same for a community of professional researchers. And if the speedrunning world can learn lessons from so many cases of cheating, there’s no excuse for scientists who fail to do the same.

Not only is scientistry – the profession of science – entirely corrupt, but the massive extent of its corruption has rendered a) the knowledge base unreliable and b) cast every claim of an application of scientody – the scientific method – into intrinsic doubt.

The corollary to this is that anyone demanding that one “trust the science” is not only engaging in rhetoric, but is either doing so in ignorance or for the purposes of deceit.

Scientists don’t catch fraud because they don’t want to. It’s not in their interest and it has not been for decades. Never trust science. There is a word for the kind of science you can trust, and it is a distinct subset of science, being comprised of a hypothesis that has not only been tested, but applied in practice.

Trust God and engineering.

DISCUSS ON SG

Evil Always Eats Its Own

Those who have taken the ticket or are celebrated for their utility in building the false case against God had better enjoy their public adulation while it lasts. Even the most famous and well-respected scientists, who were lauded for their brilliance and whose work was absolutely integral in constructing the false scientific edifice of evolution by natural selection, are discovering that they and their work will be discredited and dishonored once the satanic narrative moves beyond them, as demonstrated by this article in Scientific American denigrating the legacy of evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson:

With the death of biologist E. O. Wilson on Sunday, I find myself again reflecting on the complicated legacies of scientists whose works are built on racist ideas and how these ideas came to define our understanding of the world.

After a long clinical career as a registered nurse, I became a laboratory-trained scientist as researchers mapped the first draft of the human genome. It was during this time that I intimately familiarized myself with Wilson’s work and his dangerous ideas on what factors influence human behavior.

His influential text Sociobiology: The New Synthesis contributed to the false dichotomy of nature versus nurture and spawned an entire field of behavioral psychology grounded in the notion that differences among humans could be explained by genetics, inheritance and other biological mechanisms. Finding out that Wilson thought this way was a huge disappointment, because I had enjoyed his novel Anthill, which was published much later and written for the public.

Wilson was hardly alone in his problematic beliefs. His predecessors—mathematician Karl Pearson, anthropologist Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel and others—also published works and spoke of theories fraught with racist ideas about distributions of health and illness in populations without any attention to the context in which these distributions occur.

Even modern geneticists and genome scientists struggle with inherent racism in the way they gather and analyze data. In his memoir A Life Decoded: My Genome: My Life, geneticist J. Craig Venter writes, “The complex provenance of ideas means their origin is often open to interpretation.”

To put the legacy of their work in the proper perspective, a more nuanced understanding of problematic scientists is necessary. It is true that work can be both important and problematic—they can coexist. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate and critique these scientists, considering, specifically the value of their work and, at the same time, their contributions to scientific racism.

Those who reject Truth will eventually find their work deemed worthless, especially by those who reject the truth even more vehemently. Don’t ever curry the world’s favor. It simply isn’t worth it.

Jesus Christ stands by his followers even when they fail. Satan abandons his servants even when they succeed.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Great Barrington Declaration

For some reason, those who declare everyone should “trust the science” and “listen to the experts” absolutely refuse to listen to actual epidemoiologists, public health scientists, and Israeli academics:

In the end, the truth will always be revealed, and the truth about the coronavirus policy is beginning to be revealed. When the destructive concepts collapse one by one, there is nothing left but to tell the experts who led the management of the pandemic – we told you so.Two years late, you finally realize that a respiratory virus cannot be defeated and that any such attempt is doomed to fail. You do not admit it, because you have admitted almost no mistake in the last two years, but in retrospect it is clear that you have failed miserably in almost all of your actions, and even the media is already having a hard time covering your shame….

You refused to adopt the “Barrington Declaration”, signed by more than 60,000 scientists and medical professionals, or other common sense programs. You chose to ridicule, slander, distort and discredit them. Instead of the right programs and people, you have chosen professionals who lack relevant training for pandemic management.

THE GREAT BARRINGTON DECLARATION

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

DISCUSS ON SG

Killshots in Canada

The devil, as always, can be detected in the details:

The Covid vaccines look worse and worse.

A reader has pointed out an amazing dataset from the province of Alberta, Canada which reports Covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by day after the first and second vaccine doses.

Infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from Covid all soar in the days and weeks after people receive their first vaccine dose.

The charts make it completely obvious why the definition of “unvaccinated” was stretched to include “those who have been vaccinated in the last 14 days”. Most of the “unvaccinated” who are now infected with Covid were actually vaccinated, they’ve just been redefined as not having received the vaxxes with which they have, in fact, been injected.

The Gun, She Smokes

Of all the words we recollect,
The most frightening are these:
Denninger was correct!

Project Veritas publishes DARPA papers that confirm what Karl Denninger has been repeatedly telling everyone about Covid-19 and the fraudulent vaccines since February 2020.

What I’ve maintained all along is in in official government-documented form:

The virus was man-made. Ecohealth tried to get funding through DARPA and was told to go to Hell because it violated the constraint on gain-of-function research. Fauci didn’t give a **** and his part of the NIH funded it.

There were people in both China and here in the US (along with presumably other nations) who were involved. They all knew damn well what happened and all of them have lied for the last 2+ years about it.

The governments involved all knew before the shots were released that they were dangerous and would become worthless. They knew that natural infection did not, in most cases, carry the same risk because the virus never gets into the bloodstream but there is no way to avoid that risk with an injection. We now know this factually from clinical experience (and in fact knew in the early part of 2020) — viremia does not happen in other than severe and fatal cases.

The governments also knew that Covid-19 itself was not dangerous most of the time to healthy individuals and they knew why. It was deliberately engineered that way in an attempt, this paper alleges, as an experiment to be inoculated intentionally into bats in an attempt to see whether doing so could cut off future zoonotic events. Whether the experiment went wrong by accident or intent is not known, but that it was taking place and both our government and China knew about it, along with knowing that it should not be very dangerous to most people is now established as fact. So why all the histrionics ginned up worldwide continuing to this day?

The experiment went bad and if you knew why it went bad and who was involved in it you might conclude there really is a valid reason to get rid of every single government agency and individual involved. Unlike “conspiracy theories” that are flat-out crap its not crazy to contemplate doing that either, especially given the death toll. It was evident within weeks that medically frail people were going to get buttraped by this thing and thus if the government told the truth the pitchforks might well come out since they actually created this ****ing monster and it wasn’t just China – it was also the United States Government that did it and several institutions within this nation were intimately involved as well.

Oh by the way the same documents also contain evidence that the Government knew both HCQ and Ivermectin were effective against the virus by April of 2020. How many people died that were denied access to safe drugs that our government had every reason to believe worked?

The propaganda machine hasn’t been shut down yet, but the Narrative is officially shattered.

DISCUSS ON SG

Exponential Damage

Karl Denninger observes that the risk of myocarditis from the mRNA contained in the Pfizer and Moderna vaxxes appears to grow exponentially with the mRNA contained.

I noted that the original myocarditis data, which was claimed to be “rare”, contained what looked like an indicator of exponential damage. That is, the second jab was much more likely than the first to produce trouble in that regard.

Well, now it gets worse.

As is apparent from a very large study group in Britain, the data continues to show that series is valid but also has a much-more troubling aspect to it, in that it appears that the Moderna jabs are worse than the Pfizer ones. This is important because much more mRNA is in the Moderna jabs. Further, the exponential factor appears to be a doubling with each dose for the Pfizer shots, which means the risk is a power function and not linear, and the fact that now we have booster data and the series has continued means the risk does not bleed off back to baseline over time.

We don’t know with the Moderna jabs when it comes to boosters as there were not enough boosters given to get statistical power.

But the second shot showed sixteen times the risk from baseline instead of four for Pfizer.

The ugly news is that the Pfizer jabs are 30ug of mRNA each. Moderna’s are 100ug. So two Pfizers is 60ug total for a 4x increase, where two Modernas is 200ug total for a 16x increase. In other words for Pfizer its about 15ug/step, where for Moderna its 12.5ug/step.

That’s pretty close statistically and implies there is a direct dose-response relationship, the relationship is exponential rather than linear and the issue is not related to the process used by each manufacturer either, which means this isn’t manufacturer-specific.

Exponential is not a word you want to hear when health-related topics are being discussed. Don’t vaxx. Don’t boost. Live long, propagate, and prosper.

UPDATE: It’s not just the British scientists who are reaching worrisome conclusions about the relationship between the mRNA vaccines and myocarditis.

There is a significant increase in the risk of acute myocarditis/pericarditis following Comirnaty vaccination among Chinese male adolescents, especially after the second dose.

DISCUSS ON SG