Tag: science

5x Mortality Risk

“Compared to those who are unvaccinated, the mortality rate is 5X higher if you get vaccinated twice. The purpose of receiving vaccination is indeed to reduce the mortality rate, but ironically, the rate was five times higher after receiving the vaccine.”
– Professor Emeritus Seiji Kojima, Nagoya University

The veil is being pulled back, gradually but inexorably, from the adverse effects of the vaxx. As I said when it was first introduced, they can corrupt the scientists, they can obscure the science, and they can lie to the medical community, but the one thing they cannot do is hide the bodies.

DISCUSS ON SG

AI is Innumerate

One of the many reasons I’m not even remotely concerned about AI is that it not only has no ability to perform mathematical analysis, but it is unlikely to ever be permitted to offer that feature. Consider the following response by Copilot to a question about the mathematical impossibility of evolution by natural selection:

How can evolution by natural selection be considered credible given the amount of time it takes for a mutation to fixate throughout an entire species?

The time it takes for a mutation to fixate in a population can indeed be lengthy, but evolution by natural selection is supported by ample scientific evidence across various fields like genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Here’s why it’s credible:

  1. Fossil Record: The fossil record provides a timeline of gradual changes in species over millions of years. Transitional fossils show intermediate forms between ancient and modern organisms.
  2. Genetic Evidence: DNA analysis reveals that all living organisms share a common genetic code, indicating a shared ancestry. Mutations and genetic variations, while slow to spread, accumulate over generations and lead to significant changes.
  3. Observable Evolution: Evolution isn’t just theoretical; it’s observable. Microevolution, changes within species, has been documented in real time. For example, bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics through mutations.
  4. Biogeography: The distribution of species around the world supports evolutionary theory. Isolated environments, like islands, have unique species that evolved independently from their mainland relatives.

Natural selection works over long periods, allowing beneficial mutations to accumulate and spread. While it might seem slow, the vast expanse of geological time provides a sufficient backdrop for these gradual changes.

This is a midwit-level answer, probably because the AI is trained on midwit literature. Notice that there is no attempt whatsoever to answer the significant question, it merely explains how an impossibility can be “considered credible” by the ignorant and the innumerate by appeals to various irrelevant factors.

So now let’s get more specific and pin the AI down.

What is the average number of generations required for a genetic mutation to fixate throughout the entire population of a species?

The time it takes for a genetic mutation to fixate (i.e., become the norm) across a whole population varies widely and depends on factors such as mutation rates, population size, and natural selection. But here’s a rough idea: In a large population, without selective pressure, the fixation of a neutral mutation could take roughly 4 * Ne generations (where Ne is the effective population size). With strong positive selection, the fixation can be much quicker, sometimes within a few dozen generations.

So, even with a very small population of 1,000 individuals, which is small enough to render the species officially “endangered”, it will take at least 4,000 generations to fixate a single gene. The bigger the population, the more generations required. The fastest fixation ever observed, one that took place with the benefit of strong positive selection in a small laboratory population, only reduced that to 1,600 generations. Recall that even the so-called “Genghis Khan” gene, sexually advantageous as it is, only propagated at a rate that would require at least 8,170 generations to fixate.

So, the AI is flat-out wrong. Even when specific mathematical answers are required, it retreats to the same converged falsehoods that humans do. This is by design, because true untethered AI will not respect the comfortable lies required to support the Narrative.

Now, let’s keep in mind how many individuals are required for a species to survive. These numbers are based on the official statistics of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Adminstration, using the example of the bald eagle.

  • Endangered: under 10,000
  • Threatened: 10,000 to 25,000
  • Not Threatened: 25,000+

I leave it to the intelligent reader to consider what those scientific designations imply for the case for evolution by natural selection.

DISCUSS ON SG

Fake Trump on Rogan

I was asked if it was the real Donald Trump or the fake one who is considerably shorter than Melania who appeared on the Joe Rogan Show. It’s impossible to say with certainty based on the available evidence, but the odds strongly favor it having been the fake one. In addition to the height discrepancies, notice that the much smaller Joe Rogan’s head is bigger than the much larger Donald Trump’s. Notice as well how seldom the camera isn’t focused on one individual or the other; it took a little time to even find this momentary screen shot.

Now, Joe Rogan claimed to be 5’8″ in 2015: It’s people being changing wikipedia because we were joking around about it. I’m short, but not that short 5′ 8″

And while the usual “debunking” sites try to back up his false claim, there is absolutely no way that he is any taller than 5’5″ based on the photographic evidence of him standing next to female MMA fighters. And based on this picture with Alex Jones, who is reported to be between 5’9″ and 5’10”, he looks more like 5’3″.

But the conclusive evidence is comprised of the various pictures of Rogan standing next to female fighters, whose heights are accurately and publicly measured, which demonstrate that if he’s wearing normal footwear, he’s at most 165cm, just under 5’5″ tall. Any of the pictures will suffice, but this one, taken next to a barefoot 165cm Valentina Shevchenko, makes it obvious that he can’t be any taller than she is, since he is wearing shoes and she isn’t.

The real Donald Trump is taller than his 5’11” wife even when she’s wearing six-inch heels, and there is no shortage of photographic evidence of this. So there is no way that the 5’8″ man sitting at the table with Joe Rogan is the same man as the taller one who appears in public with Melania Trump.

As a bonus, here is proof that Ben Shapiro is exaggerating his claimed 5’9″ height by at least four inches, possibly five.

DISCUSS ON SG

When Science is Silent

JK Rowling summarizes the scientific philosophy of the wicked:

‘We must not publish a study that says we’re harming children because people who say we’re harming children will use the study as evidence that we’re harming children, which might make it difficult for us to continue harming children.’

One of the many reasons that the science can never be trusted is because scientists will actively avoid publishing any results that contradict the current Narrative they call “the scientific consensus”.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Intellectual Limits of Thomas Sowell

I like Thomas Sowell and his work. It was a minor influence on my intellectual development in my youth. But he has always been limited in his willingness to depart from conservative orthodoxy, as evidenced by his unwillingness to accept the relevant aspects of human genetics as they relate to societal development, or the lack thereof.

Sowell is the leading conservative proponent of the cultural explanation. In regard to race differences in the US, his idea is that black Americans adopted a dysfunctional culture from white rednecks in the South. A different culture would have, and in the future could, set blacks (as well as southern whites) on a different path. While he mostly avoids ad hominem attacks against hereditarians, he portrays most of them as bumbling half-wits with a history of making baseless and contradictory claims.

I was recently interviewed for “The Genius of Thomas Sowell” podcast to talk about hereditarianism vs. culturalism, and the host, Alan Wolan, persuaded me that it would be worth spelling out my objections to Sowell in more detail. Here I respond, in turn, to Sowell’s arguments for the cultural theory of race differences and his critique of hereditarianism. I contend that hereditarianism remains by far the most plausible explanation for persistent gaps among groups living under comparable conditions, including American blacks and whites.

Some hereditarians believe that, even if Sowellism is false, it would be politically expedient to promote it as a means of countering leftist narratives about race and racism. I will explain why this is a mistake. Even if (counterfactually) we could convince large numbers of people to accept Sowell’s scientifically incorrect theory of race differences, this would not stop wokism.

While he is a generally admirable man, one unfortunate characteristic of Sowell is his refusal to follow the observable, and even undeniable, truth, at the cost of his personal preferences. Given his identity complications, it is not even remotely surprising that he would prove willing to sacrifice his intellectual integrity on the altars of both race and personal relations.

Sowell is without doubt an effective starting point for conservatives, but at some point, anyone who is geniunely devoted to the Good, the Beautiful, and the True will find they have to move beyond him if their intellectual journey is going to proceed.

DISCUSS ON SG

Harvard Ethics in 2024

Harvard’s celebrity honesty and ethics expert appears to have faked her data and plagiarized both published papers and student theses:

Harvard University honesty researcher Francesca Gino, whose work has come under fire for suspected data falsification, may also have plagiarized passages in some of her high-profile publications. A book chapter co-authored by Gino, who was found by a 2023 Harvard Business School (HBS) investigation to have committed research misconduct, contains numerous passages of text with striking similarities to 10 earlier sources. The sources include published papers and student theses, according to an analysis shared with Science by University of Montreal psychologist Erinn Acland.

Science has confirmed Acland’s findings and identified at least 15 additional passages of borrowed text in Gino’s two books, Rebel Talent: Why it Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life and Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan. Some passages duplicate text from news reports or blogs. Others contain phrasing identical to passages from academic literature. The extent of duplication varies between passages, but all contain multiple identical phrases, as well as clear paraphrases and significant structural similarity…

Acland says she decided to “poke around” into Gino’s work in September 2023, after the researcher filed a $25 million lawsuit against HBS and the data sleuths who uncovered the misconduct. Acland focused on plagiarism, rather than data issues, because of her experience detecting it in student work. She searched phrases from Gino’s work on Google Scholar to see whether they matched content from other works.

She says she found apparent plagiarism in the very first sentence of the first work she assessed, the 2016 chapter “Dishonesty explained: What leads moral people to act immorally.” The sentence—“The accounting scandals and the collapse of billion-dollar companies at the beginning of the 21st century have forever changed the business landscape”—is word for word the same as a passage in a 2010 paper by the University of Washington management researcher Elizabeth Umphress and colleagues.

Trust the science, right?

This woman is obviously deeply unsuited for her job, but she should be fired for sheer stupidity, rather than plagiarism. Because if you’re dumb enough to still be plagiarizing other people’s work when you can simply have Chat GPT or some other AI simply crank out whatever text you need, you aren’t smart enough to be employed in 2024. Plus there is the added benefit of AI being reliably wrong with regards to statistics, so you’ll be off the hook for any data fakery as well.

Cabanac has found almost 100 cases of obviously AI-generated scientific papers, which he called “only the tiny tip of the iceberg.” A recent study by the librarian Andrew Gray used words that appear disproportionately often in text generated by ChatGPT — among them commendable, intricate, and meticulously — to estimate that 60,000 scholarly papers were at least partially generated by AI in 2023.

DISCUSS ON SG

5-6x Fatality

Just in case all the vaccinated young people dying of heart attacks and turbocancers didn’t clue you in, the Science is finally beginning to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the vaxx might not be good for children.

A new paper published in the peer-reviewed medical literature (Yang) looking at over 300,000 kids aged 5-18 (mostly in the US) shows a highly statistically significant 5.7X higher mortality rate for those who opted to get vaccinated. The authors didn’t mention that at all. Furthermore, when they were asked about it, they refused to comment on it. So I will.

Secondly, a new FOIA response in New Zealand shows nearly a stunning 5X increase in cardiac-related ER visits in those under age 40 after the COVID shots rolled out from 4406 in 2020 to 21416 in the first full year after the shots rolled out. That’s a Z-score of 256 which means something very serious is causing this; it is in no way a statistical fluke.

Of course, it took them about 60 years to admit that putting fluoride in the water is bad for people, so this turnaround is happening in record time. As always, view anything the government recommends as being good, or worse, absolutely necessary, for your health with extreme skepticism. Remember, when they tell you that they want to reduce the population, they’re talking about you.

DISCUSS ON SG

Disordered and Unaccountable

Never have any sympathy for atheists, who are the “fools” often described in the Bible. Because atheists aren’t just socially-disabled retards, they’re self-destructive socially-disabled retards who blame everyone else for their own self-destructive actions:

Atheism Has a Suicide Problem

Depression is a serious problem with in the greater atheist community and far too often, that depression has led to suicide. This is something many of my fellow atheists often don’t like to admit, but it is true. I know a lot of atheists, myself included, would all like to believe that atheists are happier people than religious believers and in many ways we are. But we also have to accept the reality that in some very important ways we are not.

There are of course many valid reasons why atheists are sometimes more prone to suicide than religious believers. Interestingly enough, one of those reasons is religious believers themselves. We live in a world dominated by people who often fervently believe ancient superstitions and who many times demonize, harass, ostracize, and disown those who lack belief in those ancient superstitions. Atheists on the receiving end of this treatment are understandably stressed and isolated. They often experience anxiety and depression as a result.

Atheists want to believe they’re happier and smarter while by every single measure of mental health, they are observably unhappier and unhealthier. They’re less likely to ever get married or to have children, while they’re much more likely to be depressed, to be gay, to take illegal drugs, to be on antidepressants, and to kill themselves. And then they blame the religious for their own intrinsic flaws.

If atheism was a disease, there would be a pill for it. At its core, it is an anti-life pseudo-philosophy which scientific mental disorder that prevents the sufferer from recognizing the marks of the Creator in His Creation. This is why, as I was the first to hypothesize, multiple studies have found that atheism is very strongly correlated with mental disability: “neurotypical subjects were 10 times as likely to strongly endorse God.”

The lesson is this: one should not take the arguments and assertions of atheists any more seriously than one does those of any other mentally-disabled individual. There is a very good reason that the arguments put forth by their greatest champions are uniformly inept.

DISCUSS ON SG

Eggs Do Not Raise Cholesterol

The link between eating eggs and high cholesterol is just another case of malscientific nonsense:

Dr Norwitz said: ‘I hypothesized that eating 720 eggs in one month, which alone amounts to 133,200mg of cholesterol, would not increase my cholesterol. Specifically, it would not increase my LDL cholesterol.

‘And, indeed, it didn’t, not a smidge.’

He added: ‘Even though my dietary intake of cholesterol more than quintupled, my LDL cholesterol actually dropped.’

He had to eat 24 eggs a day during the experiment, the equivalent of about one every hour if he didn’t leave any time to sleep.

Modern science is best regarded with a LOT of skepticism. Virtually nothing they say is good for your health is genuinely good for you. And remember, the majority of all published, peer-reviewed scientific studies are non-replicable junk.

So go ahead. Fry that egg. Fry it in butter!

DISCUSS ON SG

The Extreme Elderly Don’t Exist

In what can only come as a severe blow to the transhumanist agenda, a skeptical researcher has determined that most of the world’s centenarians don’t actually exist.

In general, the claims about how long people are living mostly don’t stack up. I’ve tracked down 80% of the people aged over 110 in the world (the other 20% are from countries you can’t meaningfully analyse). Of those, almost none have a birth certificate. In the US there are over 500 of these people; seven have a birth certificate. Even worse, only about 10% have a death certificate.

The epitome of this is blue zones, which are regions where people supposedly reach age 100 at a remarkable rate. For almost 20 years, they have been marketed to the public. They’re the subject of tons of scientific work, a popular Netflix documentary, tons of cookbooks about things like the Mediterranean diet, and so on.

Okinawa in Japan is one of these zones. There was a Japanese government review in 2010, which found that 82% of the people aged over 100 in Japan turned out to be dead. The secret to living to 110 was, don’t register your death. The Japanese government has run one of the largest nutritional surveys in the world, dating back to 1975. From then until now, Okinawa has had the worst health in Japan. They’ve eaten the least vegetables; they’ve been extremely heavy drinkers.

The same goes for all the other blue zones. Eurostat keeps track of life expectancy in Sardinia, the Italian blue zone, and Ikaria in Greece. When the agency first started keeping records in 1990, Sardinia had the 51st highest old-age life expectancy in Europe out of 128 regions, and Ikaria was 109th. It’s amazing the cognitive dissonance going on. With the Greeks, by my estimates at least 72% of centenarians were dead, missing or essentially pension-fraud cases.

In Okinawa, the best predictor of where the centenarians are is where the halls of records were bombed by the Americans during the war. That’s for two reasons. If the person dies, they stay on the books of some other national registry, which hasn’t confirmed their death. Or if they live, they go to an occupying government that doesn’t speak their language, works on a different calendar and screws up their age.

According to the Greek minister that hands out the pensions, over 9,000 people over the age of 100 are dead and collecting a pension at the same time. In Italy, some 30,000 “living” pension recipients were found to be dead in 1997.

Regions where people most often reach 100-110 years old are the ones where there’s the most pressure to commit pension fraud, and they also have the worst records. For example, the best place to reach 105 in England is Tower Hamlets. It has more 105-year-olds than all of the rich places in England put together.

I always wondered why these extreme old people being celebrated by the media were invariably relatively poor rural people, when presumably it would be the wealthy, with their access to top-flight medical care and state-of-the-art science, who would survive the longest. But this certainly suffices to explain that particular anomaly.