Tag: science

Vaxx-Cancer Link Confirmed

We’d already figured this out due to observing the huge increase in turbo cancers, but now it’s been proven beyond any possible shadow of a doubt.

Cambridge, Massachusetts-based vaccine maker Moderna has confirmed that its mRNA Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) injections could cause cancer. The company made this admission in patent filings disclosed by Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, during a hearing led by U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). According to Malone, Moderna’s patent shows that its vaccine contains billions of DNA fragments and other contaminants linked to birth defects and cancer.

So now we know that both Modern and Pfizer knew their products could do what they have been observed to do. If you’ve been vaxxed with either a Moderna or Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, be sure to stay up-to-date on your various health checks, and if you’re in remission from any sort of cancer, get checked early and often. While the two vaxxes don’t appear to cause new cancers, at least not yet, they do appear to be causing any existing cancer cells to wake up and aggressively multiply.

The several oncologists who have written to me about this uniformly report that they’ve never before witnessed their patients in remission succumbing so rapidly to cancers that had, prior to the vaxx, not been showing any signs of returning.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Not-Cure Worse Than the Disease

Fortunately, the Vaxx doesn’t appear to be killing or otherwise harming very many children. But those deaths and injuries are absolutely unnecessary, as an Oxford University study demonstrates:

A new large-scale study from renowned scientists at the prestigious University of Oxford has just confirmed that myocarditis and pericarditis only appear in children and adolescents after Covid vaccination and not after infection from the virus.

The new study looked at the official government data of more than 1 million English children and adolescents aged between five and 11 and 12 and 15. The study compared vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects.

Vaxxed: 12 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis, 3 deaths
Unvaxxed: 0 cases; 0 deaths

Considering there were no COVID deaths in either cohort, health authorities such as the CDC should be IMMEDIATELY telling parents not to vaccinate their kids.

The myo and pericarditis cases difference is highly statistically significant (p=0.00024). The death differences (3 vs. 0) were just short of statistical significance (p=.13).

Everyone here already knows this. But it might prove useful as reference ammo for any parents who are still sufficiently ignorant to believe the establishment propaganda. And keep this in mind when the next scare-pandemic is unleased in order to push an even more lethal “cure”.

DISCUSS ON SG

Nanobots in the Bloodstream

Trust the science. Trust the Japanese science.

New Japanese study proves Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain unauthorized “animated worm-like” entities, invisible to the human eye, which swim, wiggle, and assemble themselves into complex structures, which cause clots inside the body. (What embalmer Richard Hirschman found and exposed in the film Died Suddenly).

Dr. Young Mi Lee and Dr. Daniel Broudy from Okinawa Christian University discovered these “undisclosed additional engineered components” by isolating unused vaxx vials for 3 weeks, and then examined them under 400X magnification.

Lee and Broudy saw that when the nanotechnology was energized it created “discs, chains, spirals, tubes, and right-angle structures.”

The researchers, who published their findings in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research, believe these mysterious nanoparticles are responsible for the explosion of “turbo cancer” and autoimmune diseases around the globe.

They also concluded in the study their suspicion that these smart microscopic components are part of the elite’s “long-planned well-funded Internet of Bodies,” which was described as a kind of “synthetic global central nervous system” turning humans into controllable “Biohybrid Magnetic Robots.”

The study ends by calling for a global ban on all mRNA shots, until these nanobots are studied long-term. They also demanded the labels “vaccine” and “safe and effective” be removed because the concoction injected into billions is officially neither.

It was quite clear at this point that the vaxx was a global human extermination campaign, which makes sense in light of how it was designed and run by outspoken global exterminationists. The fact that it didn’t work very well is incidental to the purposes of those who produced, distributed, advocated, and administered the vaxx; this may be an example of “nothing works anymore” actually working in our favor for once.

But regardless, this is yet another so-called “conspiracy theory” that has now been proven to be real by proper scientists using the scientific method. And while we can’t expect any of the Clown World governments to do anything about this, given how they were all in on it, we can certainly start holding them democratically accountable.

Let’s see the debunkers put the film on TV and explain these structures away.

DISCUSS ON SG

Murdering the Refugees

A US government agency has publicly announced an evil plan to murder nearly 500,000 refugees:

U.S. wildlife officials plan to kill nearly half a million “invasive” American owls over three decades, new documents confirm. Experts say the cull is needed to help protect two native owl species, which have been put under threat from the invaders. However, animal rights activists have condemned the plan as cruel and unnecessary.

Barred owls (Strix varia) are large owls native to eastern North America. In the early 20th century, these owls started moving west of the Mississippi River following “human-induced changes” to the Great Plains and northern boreal forest, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). As a result, the owls have gained a stronghold in Washington, Oregon and California, where they are considered an invasive species.

The arrival of barred owls in the Northwest has adversely affected two native owl species — northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) and California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) — which are both much smaller than the invaders and are being outcompeted for food and territory. Both native species have also been impacted by extreme logging activity over the last few decades, which has majorly reduced their range, according to California’s Santa Clara University.

Barred owls have also started mating with the spotted owls, creating hybrids that have the potential to reduce the gene pool of the spotted owl species.

The northern spotted owl population has declined severely over the past few decades, and the species is now outnumbered by barred owls across most of its range.

This, of course, is truly reprehensible. The barred owls aren’t even foreigners! They’re just as American as the northern spotted owl or the California spotted owl, and all they’re doing is chasing the American dream to make a better life for their children!

This Great Owl Replacement theory is just racism and spotted owl supremacism. Any decent owl would reject it; no owl-refugee is “illegal” or “invasive”. And if the spotted owls are mating with the barred owls, obviously they are welcoming the refugees.

Who cares about the gene pool of the spotted owl species? That’s just eugenics and Nazi pseudoscience, right? All owls are the same under their feathers, and obviously there is no place for “pure gene pools” or Spotted Owl supremacy in Owl Democracy!

A Spotted Owl supremacist seen protesting “the Great Owl Replacement.”

DISCUSS ON SG

Mailvox: Evolutionary Rhetoric

An eminent authority on mathematics, namely, Frank J. Tipler, recommends that we keep things a bit more simple and rhetorical for the innumerate enthusiasts of evolution by natural selection:

You are of course quite correct that biologists do not understand the mathematical criticisms of evolution by natural selection. Since they are incapable of being reached by dialectic, perhaps rhetoric would be more effective.

One rhetorical technique is Argument From Authority.

In your July 13, 2024 “Evolutionists are Retarded,” you refer to the mathematical arguments given in the 1966 conference by “a professor of electrical engineering from MIT and a French mathematician.” In one of your earlier posts on this subject, you mentioned the similar criticisms by the mathematician S. Ulam, but you did not say who Stanislaw Ulam was.

Ulam was the co-discoverer of the Teller-Ulam design for the thermonuclear bomb. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Teller–Ulam_design). Ulam also discovered the Monte Carlo Method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method) which was essential to working out the details of the H-bomb’s mechanism. Now the Monte Carlo Method is an evolution by natural selection technique that actually works!

An example of the Monte Carlo Method is Richard Dawkins’ “Methinks it is a weasel” so-called “example” of Darwinian evolution (it’s not). In the “Methinks” example, the endpoint is chosen ahead of time (this is teleology, which is implied by determinism — recall that Monte Carlo has a “deterministic” piece in the algorithm). Certainly, if there is a future goal chosen, natural selection can find it. The Monte Carlo Method works! But the key point of Darwinism is that evolution is assumed to have no goal.

Which means that Darwinism doesn’t work mathematically, for the reasons you’ve stated. Which was Ulam’s point. And Ulam understood the mathematics — he ought to, he invented it — and the biologists did not, and have not, and cannot.

So, if these people cannot be reached by dialectic, they might be reached by rhetoric: Ulam was a great mathematician who understood the mathematics of evolution.

Argument from Authority does not establish truth, but it does establish presumption of truth: if you cannot understand the mathematics, assume that the mathematicians do.

So there it is. Evolutionary biologists don’t understand the mathematics of evolution. And you don’t have to take the word of a humble truck driver and part-time plumber for it either, that’s on the authority of a very well-respected professor of mathematics as well as a famous mathematician of historical note.

The man can certainly turn a phrase. This one is definitely going in the aphorism book:

If you cannot understand the mathematics, assume that the mathematicians do.
–Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematics, Tulane University

That French mathematician I mentioned in the previous post was no slouch either. One thing that has become very clear is that the educated critics of TENS are vastly smarter, on average, than its best-known and most-educated advocates.

DISCUSS ON SG

Evolutionists are Retarded

It’s almost astonishing to read the papers and presentations of the 1966 Symposium and see how a) biologists simply do not understand the logical and mathematical criticisms of their vacuous tautologies, and b) how their futile defenses of evolution by natural selection haven’t substantively changed in nearly sixty years despite all of the advances in genetics. Consider the similarities between three following attempts, separated by 55 years, to address the obvious problem of probability and fixation when applied to mutations, by resorting to what the evolutionists call “cumulative selection” and “massively parallel fixation”.

  • Natural selection may appear to be a vacuous and tautological principle if only a single step is considered, but considered over a long succession of little steps, it is the only guiding principle that has stood up under experiment. Eden refers to the 10350 proteins, each consisting of 250 amino acids. He seems to imply that it would require something like this number of operations of natural selection to arrive at a particular useful one. On the principle of the children’s game of twenty questions in which it is possible to arrive at the correct one of about a million objects by a succession of 20 yes-or-no answers, it would require less than 1250 questions to arrive at a specified one of these proteins. While this is not a perfect analogy to natural selection, it is enormously more like natural selection than the typing at random of a library of 1,000 volumes with its infinitesimal chance of arriving at any sensible result. – Dr. Sewall Wright, 1966
  • I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’, and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence? We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before, it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – ‘mutation’ – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the ‘progeny’ of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. – Richard Dawkins, 1988.
  • Essentially the key of my program in comparison with your hypothesis which you laid out is that, when I have this letter of G trying to change to A, that doesn’t stop this other letter to be working toward modifying itself toward this. So essentially, the key to the difference between our two models, which differ by billions of years probably, if we were to ultimately make calculations with them, is that my model allows parallel evolution of different genes. – JF Gariepy, 2021

Now, there is no shame in their trying to address the criticism, but the retardery lies in the fact that they believe they have addressed it successfully when they haven’t even grasped the problem correctly. None of these explanatory models hold up. What we actually have here is nothing more than ontological appeals to their own imaginations, supported by simplistic and irrelevant metaphors.

Somnio ergo est is their motto. I dream, therefore it is.

In this vein, consider the sum total of one biologist’s response to the mathematical arguments of a professor of electrical engineering from MIT and a French mathematician:

I cannot accept the mathematical arguments of M. Eden and M. P. Schutzenberger that many of the statements of the principles of evolution are tautologous. Evolutionary theory, at least to me, is certainly not vacuous.

That’s it. Just an appeal to his own authority. That’s literally all they’ve got. As for the three models, there are a panoply of errors and false assumptions in them, but the most fundamental mistake the three model-makers are all making should be obvious to anyone who has ever played a game involving dice. The previous die has no effect on the subsequent one and there is no cumulative result. This is particularly true for Gariepy’s model, wherein he proposes rolling two or more dice at the same time.

But there is no model that will support evolution by natural selection, and there never will be, because models require math and math clearly and comprehensively disproves even the most remote possibility of sufficient genetic fixation required for speciation taking place as a result of evolution over time.

There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science. We show that no meaningful information can arise from an evolutionary process unless that process is guided. Even when guided, the degree of evolution’s accomplishment is limited by the expertise of the guiding information source — a limit we call Basener’s ceiling. An evolutionary program whose goal is to master chess will never evolve further and offer investment advice. There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated.

Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017

DISCUSS ON SG

There Are No Studies

As I have been pointing out for literal decades, there are very few, if any, actual scientific studies that have been performed on vaccine safety. Not for any vaccine, not for any age group of recipients. The pro-vaxxers have always begged the question and assumed the conclusion by claiming that it would be unethical to actually perform a proper double-blind study by leaving one study group of children unvaccinated, and tried to substitute ex post facto statistical analyses for genuine scientody that can be replicated with reproducible results.

But, in the aftermath of the Covid 19 vaxxastrophe, courts, lawyers, and politicians are finally looking a lot more closely at the actual facts in evidence with regards to the science of vaccine safety, and they are discovering that despite decades of assurances, there simply isn’t anything there. The scientific community has been lying and gaslighting everyone with false assurances longer than I’ve been alive.

  • For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.”
  • For decades, parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.
  • In 2018, I had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination program and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/the-deposition-of-stanley-plotkin/.
  • After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC exclude harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See https://icandecide.org/article/dr-stanley-plotkin-the-godfather-of-vaccines-reaction-to-being-questioned/.
  • The problem is, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, at bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundations, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.
  • That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realize they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth. So, their only option is to try and co-op the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist. But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.
  • Thus, in their article just published, they pretend they never lied about vaccine safety. They pretend they are now just pointing out vaccine safety has never really been conducted, as if that was not known to them before.
AND LIKE THAT, THE CLAIM VACCINES ARE THE WORLD’S BEST STUDIED PRODUCT DIES, 10 July 2024

The key admission: there are no proper safety studies.

This is precisely what Spacebunny and I have been telling everyone for decades. Unlike most people, we don’t pay any attention to the mainstream media’s science coverage, such as it is, and we don’t read the science media either. We dig up the professional papers published in the relevant science journals, and what became evident fairly quickly in this field was that the oft-cited studies on the safety of ANY vaccine simply did not exist.

Never trust the science and never, ever trust the scientists. Because most of the science is fake, if it even exists at all, and most of the scientists are corrupt liars whose work cannot be replicated.

DISCUSS ON SG

An Unwise Choice

A famous Japanese oncologist explains why he didn’t get vaccinated, and why the creation of genetic vaccines are “totally unacceptable” and “a foolish decision from the beginning”.

Genetic vaccines are totally unacceptable. The introduction of transgenes into the human body is gene therapy.   How can this be considered acceptable for creating vaccines?

If you encapsulate mRNA in nanoparticles and administer it you only get off-target effects starting from the ovaries, to the brain, liver, spleen and bone marrow. The biggest problem is going to the bone marrow, the reproductive organs like the ovaries and then every possible organ.

The fact that spike proteins are still detected in the rash after more than a year makes it obvious that mRNA is producing spike proteins. There is no way for a year-old spike protein to remain in the rash and be detected.

I didn’t choose to get vaccinated because I think it was a foolish decision from the beginning.  I haven’t even opted for the flu shot because I consider it an unwise choice.

– Prof. Masanori Fukushima, Professor Emeritus of Kyoto University, Director of the Translational Research Centre for Medical Innovation and the Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation, President of the Foundation of Learning Health Society Institute and former Director of the Outpatient Oncology Unit of Kyoto University Hospital.

DISCUSS ON SG

An Appeal to Innumeracy

I have to admit, while I was confident that all the true believers in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection were going to do their level best to avoid every doing any of the simple math required by MITTENS (Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection), I didn’t realize they were going to go so far as to literally deny the applicability of mathematics to what can now only be described as “the magic of evolution”.

Whitelightning777: Humans and chimps only differ genetically by 1% or so. That’s hardly revolutionary. When zoos have to do surgery on primates, the vets often consult human surgeons for expert advice. Go to a zoo. Look at the hands of chimps. A common ancestor is obvious. There is no way that’s a coincidence!! Just the fact that chimps can learn sign language ought to show a recent divergence. The fact that they can use human metallic tools shows that the brain also works in a similar fashion, just that chimps still aren’t quite as smart as humans, about what a 3 to 5 year old child can do. Look at the difference between wild carp and goldfish. Living things can be pressured to change structure rapidly when circumstances create the pressure to do so.

Spacebunny: You have no idea what you’re talking about. You can’t do math, nor do you understand the significance of the numbers given. No, they could not have done any such thing “a few million years ago”. It is literally mathematically impossible.

Whitelightning777: Both a 1% to a 10% difference or maybe even more could be accomplished over a period of 2 to 4 million years. The main issues are what factors exactly drove this natural selection and how much pressure was exerted upon humans by nature, animal predators and other human species attacking each other. By the way, neanderthals weren’t necessarily as nice as we all seem to think.

James Dixon: The math says no.

VD: 1.23 percent of the human genome means 37,500,000 unique base pairs specific to humans. Now, tell us how long it would take to mutate and fixate that degree of genetic disparity…

Whitelightning777: First of all, the majority of your DNA is essentially junk. The exact percentage is disputed but can be as high as 90%. Small genetic changes can quickly lead to huge differences. Over a few million years you don’t have to change very much from one generation to the next. The ABILITY to evolve, genetic flexibility itself is something that nature selects for. Creatures that can’t evolve are usually extinct. The multiple numbers of human races attest to our genetic flexibility. The modern races are only a few hundred thousand years old & have meaningful differences in health and IQ, although the extent is disputed. If our species lost it’s ability to evolve, it wouldn’t be able to split off into races either. Chimps themselves also have different races and species. Bonobos behave very differently from other chimps, even though they can all interbreed.

Dirk Gently: So, in other words, you don’t even comprehend what Vox is saying

Whitelightning777: Vox is setting a “math trap”. This is a device used by creationists. What Vox fails to realize is that 90% of that DNA is junk and that there is no upper limit to how fast evolution and generic change which can occur so long as the offspring survives and is able to reproduce. What Vox fails to realize is that a creature that can only evolve slowly will go extinct, falling behind and losing out to those with more generic flexibility.

VD: A “math trap” is a simply a basic calculation used by people who are numerate. It’s not witchcraft, no matter how opaque it may be to you. There absolutely is an upper limit to how fast mutated genes can fixate. Evolution by natural selection, biased mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow is utterly impossible by the very fastest rates of fixation ever observed in the wild or in laboratories. I will put the problem in two very simple analogies so you might be able to understand the problem.

If someone tells you the score of a professional baseball game is 562,987 to 3, you know the score is incorrect. If someone tells you he walked from New York City to Los Angeles in 34 minutes, you know he is lying. And when someone tells you that the 37.5 million human-specific base-pairs in the human genome were mutated and fixated by natural selection in less than 10 million years, you know they are absolutely wrong. Your junior high logic will never bridge that gap. It cannot. Because it is based on incorrect and impossible premises.

Whitelightning777: MATH DOESN’T APPLY to evolution.

VD: Of all the absurdly retarded statements I’ve ever seen on every form of social media dating back to the bulletin boards of the 1990s, this is, without any doubt whatsoever, the most retarded. Congratulations. Even the kid who thought bacon came from rocks was simply ignorant. But this assertion actually required enough brainpower to contemplate the concept, think it through, and then reject the idea that mathematics necessarily applies to a process that is conceived to take place over a quantifiable period of time.

Whitelightning777: Let’s keep this simple. The only math that matters with evolution is that the birth rate of a particular lifeform exceeds the death rate or barring that is at an equilibrium. Creatures for whom the death rate exceeds their birth rate are dysgenic. Creationist trick boxes are neither required nor desired.

VD: You’re literally retarded.

You don’t have to be retarded to… well, yes, at this point, it is abundantly clear that you do have to be literally retarded to believe in evolution by natural selection. As you can see, the challenge posed to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis by MITTENS is so overwhelmingly devastating that the evolutionists have to abandon not only science, but math itself, in order to cling to their outmoded, outdated, and disproven explanation for the observable diversity of life.

DISCUSS ON SG