Tag: science

Interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, May 2020

“Do you believe or is there evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was made in the lab in China or accidentally released from a lab in China?”

If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what’s out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated — the way the mutations have naturally evolved… a number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species.

If you accept the premise, which is very strongly supported by scientific evidence, that it was not deliberately mutated and deliberately changed, and you say, if it was in the wild and evolving, the likelihood it jumped species naturally, someone will say, ‘Well, maybe somebody took it from the wild, put it in the lab, and then it escaped from the lab.’ But that means it was in the wild to begin with!

Interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, May 2021

“There’s a lot of cloudiness around the origins of COVID-19 still, so I wanted to ask, are you still confident that it developed naturally?”

“No, actually. … No, I’m not convinced about that. I think that we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we find out to the best of our ability exactly what happened. Certainly, the people who’ve investigated it say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could’ve been something else, and we need to find that out. So, you know, that’s the reason why I said I’m perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origin of the virus.”

Keep this in mind the next time someone tells you to “trust the science” or that “the science is settled”. Also, the virus is man-made. This has been obvious since Bill Gates and company were wargaming its release prior to the start of the pandemic.

 Ironically, the discrimination is against men, not women:

The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. 

Science is already as unreliable as a coin toss. In another ten years, science will be as reliably false as government press releases. 

It was always obvious that the dangers of the not-vaccine were considerably greater to the Under-70 population than Coronachan itself. Indeed, it would be hard for anything to be less dangerous, as in the last 18 months, more children under 18 were killed by bicycles, swimming pools, and curtains than by the dread Covid-19 virus. But now an Israeli expert has analyzed the Israeli vaccination data and demonstrated that the risk/reward ratio of getting the Pfizer therapy is even greater for the Under-70 population than many vaccine skeptics anticipated:

Both data bodies (Tables 1 and 2 from the Ministry of Health and the data from Dagan et al in Figure 2) were initially presented as evidence favouring vaccination. However, straightforward analyses of these data highlight adverse effects. They confirm suspicions that vaccination fragilizes the immune system of the vaccinated, not only during the vaccination process, but even after full vaccination (in Table 1, the fully vaccinated die 15 times more than the unvaccinated). The raw data on which the Dagan et al publication from Clalit is based are unavailable. These data are required for transparent independent assessment of conclusions of a publication with such consequences. Current circumstances do not live up, even from far, to this basic standard requirement. Before continuing the massive vaccination project, these adverse effects must be examined and carefully evaluated vs positive effects. 

The results on increased vaccination-induced infection rates (3-fold) and death rates (around 20 times the COVID-death rate of the unvaccinated) presented above are serious reasons to suspect that a balanced cost-benefit would not be in favour of vaccination for any risk group.  Considering only COVID19-associated increased risks during the 5-week vaccination period, vaccine-induced protection would need to be absolute, which it is not, and last much longer than the 12 months projected until the next vaccine injection is required. Including in calculations unavailable precise data on vaccine-induced increased risks unrelated to COVID19 will necessarily increase the vaccine protection period required to compensate for all vaccine-associated deaths, probably beyond 2.5 years. 

Our calculations for younger age groups predict an even more extreme and dire situation. It is long known that vaccination is not cost-effective against organisms or viruses with highly mutable genomes. RNA viruses, coronaviruses and HIV included, have the most mutable known genomes. Note that vaccine-associated risks increase proportionally to the strength of the immune system, predicting that vaccination will greatly increase the very low COVID19 risks experienced by the younger population. Extrapolations two independent available datasets confirm this prediction. The precautionary principle is the first priority of those responsible for public health and its urgent application is required at this point, especially when the whole population of a country, including its youth,  is  at  stake….

Vaccination-associated mortality risks are expected at least 20 times greater below age 20 compared to the very low COVID19-associated risks for this age group enjoying the healthiest immune system.

To summarize, vaccinated people over the age of 60 have been observed to die 14.6x more often than their unvaccinated age-peers in the first two weeks after vaccination. This is a corollary, not a causal, relationship, but it is such a strong correlation that it heavily implies at least some degree of causality.

Morever, this adverse effect is likely to be magnified as the age of the population declines, because adverse effects tend to be strongest in those with healthy immune systems due to the nature of the therapy. Since young people die less often than old people, and since the vaccinations are significantly increasing the likelihood of death in the two weeks post-initial vaccination, the analysis concludes that an inordinate number of young people are going to die after being unnecessarily vaccinated.

At this point, there is absolutely no way anyone under 40 should even consider getting the vaccination, and considering the potential adverse effects on fertility, anyone attempting to push it on women under 40 should be arrested and prosecuted.

In not-at-all-unrelated news, 57 scientists and doctors have demanded an immediate end to the mass-vaccination campaigns:

In conclusion, in the context of the rushed emergency-use-authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the current gaps in our understanding of their safety, the following questions must be raised:

• Is it known whether cross-reactive antibodies from previous coronavirus infections or vaccine�206 induced antibodies may influence the risk of unintended pathogenesis following vaccination with COVID-19?
• Has the specific risk of ADE, immunopathology, autoimmunity, and serious adverse reactions been clearly disclosed to vaccine recipients to meet the medical ethics standard of patient understanding for informed consent? If not, what are the reasons, and how could it be implemented?
• What is the rationale for administering the vaccine to every individual when the risk of dying from COVID-19 is not equal across age groups and clinical conditions and when the phase 3 trials excluded the elderly, children and frequent specific conditions?
• What are the legal rights of patients if they are harmed by a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Who will cover the costs of medical treatment? If claims were to be settled with public money, has the public been made aware that the vaccine manufacturers have been granted immunity, and their responsibility to compensate those harmed by the vaccine has been transferred to the tax-payers?

In the context of these concerns, we propose halting mass-vaccination and opening an urgent pluralistic, critical, and scientifically-based dialogue on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among scientists, medical doctors, international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments, and vaccine developers. This is the only way to bridge the current gap between scientific evidence and public health policy regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We are convinced that humanity deserves a deeper understanding of the risks than what is currently touted as the official position. An open scientific dialogue is urgent and indispensable to avoid erosion of public confidence in science and public health and to ensure that the WHO and national health authorities protect the interests of humanity during the current pandemic. Returning public health policy to evidence-based medicine, relying on a careful evaluation of the relevant scientific research, is urgent. It is imperative to follow the science.

A global forecast site is predicting a 70 percent decline in the US population… by 2025:

Not that you were ever in any doubt about Tony Fauci. It probably would have looked a little too suspicious if he had simply won the lottery after buying a ticket “as a joke”.

As they say, work hard and you may win an award.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, America’s top celebrity disease official, was just awarded a $1 million prize called the Dan David Prize. Fauci won this award — one no one ever heard of but is now deemed prestigious — for not only “defending science” but also for “speaking truth to power.”

“Fauci is the consummate model of leadership and impact in public health,” the awards committee said while giving Fauci $1 million. Well, there you have it, you too can be a Dan David winner if you master, to use Fauci’s word, guesstimating.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic unraveled, Fauci leveraged his considerable communication skills to address people gripped by fear and anxiety and worked relentlessly to inform individuals in the United States and elsewhere about the public health measures essential for containing the pandemic’s spread,” the committee goes on. “In addition, he has been widely praised for his courage in speaking truth to power in a highly charged political environment.”

Translation: Good doggy. Here’s a bone. Don’t worry, we only mentioned the videos to make sure you stayed on script.

Especially when he doesn’t trust someone.

How can dogs recognize bad people?

Dogs use their previous experience to understand if someone is unreliable.

The experiment was conducted with 34 Dogs and was divided into three parts. In the first part, dog owners pointed them towards food with containers and dogs ran towards it. In the second part, the owners pointed towards containers without food and tricked Dogs into running towards it. In the third part, it was discovered that Dogs would not follow the pointing hands. They used their judgment from previous experience to judge if the person was unreliable.

Science behind Dogs sensing bad people.

Dogs have highly evolved sixth sense and are also very receptive to intricacies of human behavior. When a person has bad intentions or is about to do something bad, his heart rate increases and there is a rush of certain chemicals like adrenaline that makes the person sweat more than usual. Since Dogs have a very keen sense of smell and they are hyper-alert every moment, they can pick up on these scents and changes in behavior within seconds and react to them. The Dog’s instincts are very sharp and they are more vigilant as they live totally in the present moment, they can sense danger and bad vibes, they react either by becoming fearful or become hyper-aggressive in their demeanor.

I always trust a dog person more than someone who isn’t. I mean, if you don’t like optimistic creatures who are happy, glad to see you, and won’t even hesitate to throw themselves in between you and potential danger, I have to seriously question what is wrong with you.

Spacebunny is clearly the exact opposite of a bad person. She had THREE dogs on the couch with her this morning, which is one more than will actually fit. But somehow, they made it work. Of course, if a Rhodesian Ridgeback decides that there is totally space for her in the seven square inches of available space, it’s virtually impossible to convince her otherwise.

 And, presumably, Creepy Joe Biden. Sidney Powell announces more genuine TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE of vote fraud in Arizona:

It’s in your face everywhere. The statistical evidence is insurmountable. The mathematical evidence is to a mathematical impossibility. This is no way there was anything but widespread election fraud here. We’ve got one witness that says in Arizona at least there were 35,000 votes added to every Democratic candidate just to start their voting off. It’s like getting your $500 of Monopoly money to begin with when you haven’t done anything. And it was only for Democrats.

It pains me to have to point out to skeptical morons that mathematically-based statistical evidence is court-admissible DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Eyewitness testimony is court-admissible TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE.

If you’re waiting for published peer-reviewed scientific “evidence”, then you are irredeemably stupid and don’t even understand what evidence is. Because scientific “evidence” is not only not legally considered evidence, it is not even directly admissible in court as such. It is only admissible as testimonial evidence through the expert testifying.

In other news, Team Trump continues to exude confidence.

We spoke with a top Trump associate tonight.  This is what we were told… repeatedly…  

“Trump is going to win.”

It’s going to be a good couple of weeks ahead.

Enjoy the ride. Because the ride never ends. 

 A new book debunks 35 commonly-held myths about intelligence, IQ, and heritability:

In the spirit of correcting misapprehensions quickly, here are some snap answers to the first 6 questions:

1. In fact, when the same people are given very different intelligence tests, including tests constructed in the belief that there is no general factor, the general factors extracted from the disparate tests correlate at above the .9 level.
2. Mental tasks correlate with each other, and it is easy to extract a general factor (and also some group factors) so it is not unwarranted to summarize people’s general level of ability with one number.
3. Brain size is weakly related .2 to .4 with intelligence, frontal lobes probably in the higher part of that range. Brighter people have more neurons in their brains, and those neurons are more densely packed together and, perhaps counter-intuitively, have fewer connections branching off each neurone. So, intelligence does have a relation to brain function, but research is at an early stage.
4. If intelligence really varies in character between different cultures, then it should be very difficult to extract the “Western” general factor, yet in 31 countries, and using a wide variety of tests, 94 of the 97 (96.9{5c1a0fb425e4d1363f644252322efd648e1c42835b2836cd8f67071ddd0ad0e3}) samples produced g either immediately or after a second factor analysis. Moreover, the g factor is about as strong in the non-Western samples as it is in typical Western samples. Most countries find “Western” intelligence tests very useful, once they have been translated and some language and specific knowledge items altered or removed. To cap it all, dogs, rats, mice, donkey and primates show g factors. It looks like an evolutionary adaptation.
5. Everyone seems to want multiple intelligences, particularly educationalists. However, even when researchers attempt to measure these multiple intelligences, the result is a series of correlated variables that produce a general factor, which is exactly what should never occur, according to the theory. Moreover, the proposer of the theory did not think it necessary to make it testable.
6. If practical intelligence could be measured, American Football teams would find it extremely useful. Instead, they use the Wonderlic intelligence test, because it correlates with some of the more complicated playing abilities. The proposer of the theory does not specify what results will prove that practical intelligence differs from general intelligence.

It’s true that IQ is an imperfect proxy for whatever multiplicity of genes happens to produce the observable differences in what we generally call intelligence. But even given the limited current state of scientage on the subject, what would have to be denied in order to completely reject intelligence and IQ, as well as their heritability, would also require the abandonment of virtually everything we believe we know on a statistical basis, as well as a considerable portion of the entire scientific knowledge base.

This is why I don’t pay much attention to IQ critics, even when they happen to be legitimately brilliant men who are otherwise well worth listening to. While their criticisms of this or that particular may be relevant, they don’t even begin to shake the foundations of what has been reliably observed to be true as well as solidly supported by scientody.

Richard Dawkins is discovering that the postchristian society he helped bring about isn’t necessarily to his liking:

The College Historical Society (the Hist) has tonight rescinded its invitation to Richard Dawkins to address the society next year.

Auditor of the Hist Bríd O’Donnell announced the cancellation in a statement on her Instagram page, saying that she had been “unaware of Richard Dawkins’ opinions on Islam and sexual assault until this evening”, adding that the society “will not be moving ahead with his address as we value our members comfort above all else”.

“The invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak at the society was made by my predecessor and I followed up the invitation with limited knowledge of Mr. Dawkins”, O’Donnell said. “I had read his Wikipedia page and researched him briefly. Regretfully I didn’t look further into him before moving forward with the invitation.”

“I want to thank everyone who pointed out this valuable information to me”, O’Donnell added. “I truthfully hope we didn’t cause too much discomfort and if so, I apologise and will rectify it.”

No Christianity, no inquiry, no science. Dawkins’s central thesis was not only wrong, it was backward. Christianity and science are not only NOT at war, Christianity is a necessary condition for science, logically, historically, and observably. 

UPDATE: Bruce Charleton notes that Richard Dawkins simply lacks the intellectual courage to question his godless convictions, or even to contemplate the relevant evidence.

A few years ago I met Richard Dawkins at a small, relaxed party.

I had a question I wanted to put to him.

At the time I was not a Christian, but I was interested in religions and was (for example) studying religiosity and atheism in relation to personality.

I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival.

The point I put to Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world.

How, I asked, could this be – if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?

Dawkins simply shook off this point, with a literal shake of his head looking downwards, and the comment to the effect that the scientists and Christians were two entirely different groups of people.

Sooner or later, the physicists are bound to follow the philosophers in gradually coming to recognize the need to choose between Christianity and nihilism.

Futurism: Your paper argues that the universe might fundamentally be a neural network. How would you explain your reasoning to someone who didn’t know very much about neural networks or physics?

Vitaly Vanchurin: There are two ways to answer your question.

The first way is to start with a precise model of neural networks and then to study the behavior of the network in the limit of a large number of neurons. What I have shown is that equations of quantum mechanics describe pretty well the behavior of the system near equilibrium and equations of classical mechanics describes pretty well how the system further away from the equilibrium. Coincidence? May be, but as far as we know quantum and classical mechanics is exactly how the physical world works.

The second way is to start from physics. We know that quantum mechanics works pretty well on small scales and general relativity works pretty well on large scales, but so far we were not able to reconcile the two theories in a unified framework. This is known as the problem of quantum gravity. Clearly, we are missing something big, but to make matters worse we do not even know how to handle observers. This is known as the measurement problem in context of quantum mechanics and the measure problem in context of cosmology.

Then one might argue that there are not two, but three phenomena that need to be unified: quantum mechanics, general relativity and observers. 99{5274a41d3bd2aa3d5829764fe19e8a7ecbc79c108731aad5f1ff2d292e60e2b4} of physicists would tell you that quantum mechanics is the main one and everything else should somehow emerge from it, but nobody knows exactly how that can be done. In this paper I consider another possibility that a microscopic neural network is the fundamental structure and everything else, i.e. quantum mechanics, general relativity and macroscopic observers, emerges from it. So far things look rather promising.

I’ve long been under the impression that whether it is the Big Bang, the need for a quantum observer, or a universal neural network, modern physics has relentlessly pointed towards the existence of God for those with the intelligence required to understand the evidence. I suspect that is why string theory, which is little more than the usual retreat from science that points in directions that atheists and Prometheans fear, has been holding on despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence to support the theoretical framework.

These are fascinating times. Darwin is all but dead, Einstein is being exposed, Ricardo has been destroyed, and postmodernism is fooling no one as it clowns about like a naked emperor in drag.