The world where the fakeness is the reality is the world where WWIII ain't gonna happen because of nukes. The WE, the Elohim that I channel, the Spiritual World that is the Real Intelligence, RI, known too as Brahma teaches the truth. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't happen as reported and repeated over and over and over again for the past almost-80 years.
Now Kitty Licks is merely a pussy with tits, so hearing her might not happen. And her best boyfriend is the 30+ years now dead ghost of Kurt Cobain. Yes. He flies like Casper but looks like Kurt, cute as ever. So that might be too weird to stomach but...
Check out the truth. Now think about the people trying to use fake science to enforce pandemic realities that then force toxic injections to "stay safe" from fictional diseases. Think of near constant warfare since 1945. Think about the Manhattan Project's owners, the really really really really rich and connected people, "the elite", that rely on servants to do everything for them...These incompetents created the nukes in secret? Nukes that haven't been used again since 1945 but have created the existential threat that always lingers and NATO and constant non-nuclear war going on and intelligence agencies and outrageous defense budgets and $trillions missing from the Pentagon, etc....All while they are bankrupting the USA and depopulating other countries, Vietnam and Iraq for instance, to "keep us safe from the __________ threat".
Why haven't they used the nukes to thin out the people more quickly? Why? Because the nuclear fission didn't ever really happen. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were simply carpet bombed just like Berlin was. And the Hollywood world was employed to produce the images that show "mushroom clouds" forming superimposed on burning fires with big explosion sounds. Now that sounds plausible, right?
Money changers are the really big folks that must be dethroned. Decentralize currency control and abolish the IRS. Take away the money changers', the banking cartels', monopoly on money creation. And taxes are needed why?
Now think again about the reality that Kitty Licks is talking to you about the world where the Spiritual is real. The spiritual too is there to remember that loading up on guns means somebody will be shot dead.
Loading up on trust, responsibility, honesty, kindness and, simply put, the old fashioned Golden Rule means what? A better world? Huh?
Life is the truth that the going home to another world will be when the realities are that the world isn't the thing to be bought and sold but the home to the spiritual needs too and too the home to the animals that are in fact actually free, except the farm animals that provide the nourishment to the many people starving on the Animal Farm of Orwell's massively grand novel.
God is real. And God wants a better world. And the Holy Spirit is the Brahma. God wants the animals to be able to be allowed more space too.
This is, unfortunately, nothing new. I recall back in my undergraduate days (early 1980s) purchasing an interesting book on this very topic. Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1126068.Betrayers_of_the_Truth) took a deep dive into the incentivisations within science/academia that led many researchers to 'cook the books' as it were. Tenure. Research grants. 'Fame'. And a host of other influences (including the 'publish or perish' mentality) all have an impact. This text challenged my view of science as some great 'objective' arbiter of the truth and convinced me that everything needs to be questioned. Everything.
The leveraging of science by politics is also nothing new. I can't help but think of the eugenics movement in this way (see Dr. Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man for more on this). And when people make such arguments about the 'science' supporting a sociopolitical movement or policy, I always have to ask: Whose science? Which science?
While the scientific method may be the ideal means of zeroing in on some ideal and 'objective' universal 'truths', it is carried out by and interpreted via totally subjective humans and all their foibles and biases.
Far too many place science and scientists upon an 'objective' pedestal with little consideration of the socio-cultural, -political, and -economic influences that impact the practice and its practitioners.
A quote at the beginning of a paper critical of the 'renewable energy transition' by Megan Seibert and ecologist Dr Bill Rees resonates with me: "We begin with a reminder that humans are storytellers by nature. We socially construct complex sets of facts, beliefs, and values that guide how we operate in the world. Indeed, humans act out of their socially constructed narratives as if they were real. All political ideologies, religious doctrines, economic paradigms, cultural narratives—even scientific theories—are socially constructed “stories” that may or may not accurately reflect any aspect of reality they purport to represent. Once a particular construct has taken hold, its adherents are likely to treat it more seriously than opposing evidence from an alternate conceptual framework."
"While the scientific method may be the ideal means of zeroing in on some ideal and 'objective' universal 'truths', it is carried out by and interpreted via totally subjective humans and all their foibles and biases."
Strongly disagree with the above. When you apply the Scientific Method you are given a set of test conditions and an outcome in support of a hypothesis. You get a yes or no answer. That is the beauty of the method. It is a reproducible fact. Not the mumbo jumbo you describe.
We will have to agree to disagree. Virtually every test ‘result’ must be interpreted by humans and through their personal lens. As often happens, identical/observable phenomena can be interpreted in a variety of ways (and sometimes diametrically-opposed ways). It is rarely if ever a ‘yes-no’ choice—especially for the ‘non-physical’ sciences.
Catalyst A improves run yield by 2.3% when compared with catalyst B. It either does or it doesn't.
When you drift from the physical sciences, you can no longer define your test conditions accurately. How can you test for an outcome if you can't reproduce the test conditions? As such, you can't apply the scientific method.
I don’t disagree. As soon as one begins to analyse complex systems with their nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena all bets are off. It is a relatively small portion of phenomena where all variables can be controlled for and undergo repeated testing.
On another front, there's been a huge wave of unethical retractions of high quality medical papers with inconvenient findings during the covid era. And it's likely many quality papers simply cannot get published as they can't find a journal that will accept the backlash from publishing results that Big Pharma doesn't like. This has been a problem for many years when it comes to the efficacy of low-profit medicine, or findings critical of current high-profit medicine, but it accelerated massively during covid.
In medicine, the replication crisis is also partly due to major institutions (*cough*Harvard*cough*) doing studies on alternative medicine intentionally wrong, so that they fail to get the same results as the many smaller, less well-funded studies that were showing a lot of promise. As a biostatistician I'd never claim you can't lie with statistics, but more often it's in the way the study was set up -- the devil is usually in the Methods section. Use the wrong dose, wrong formulation, wrong instructions for participants, and lo and behold, your $5 million study doesn't replicate what 26 other tiny well-done studies found. And guess which study gets alllll the media headlines? Another form of corruption in itself.
As the author of specifications for high pressure , high temperature valves for European nuclear PWR plants in the late 1970's , I can tell you that the 'VAXX' had virtually zero Quality Assurance or Quality Control standards . The batch to batch variabilty in VAERS proves it !
My parents went to get vaccinated at the same time in late March 2021, but my mom's name was not on some required list, so she was unable to get vaccinated. She received the vaccine a few days later at a different location. Their second doses were similarly at these two separate locations on different days. Both my father's doses, Moderna 030A21A and 017B21A, are very near the top of the list of bad batches; my mother's are nowhere near the top of the bad batches list in VAERS. Good thing her name wasn't on that list that day or I might have lost both of my parents instead of only my father, in June 2021. He was 72 and in good health until the vaccine. Straight downhill with idiopathic multiple organ failure after that (ruled out sepsis while he was alive, but officially, sepsis).
That is heartbreaking ! Sorry for the loss of your father and for the other millions who likewise have lost beloved family members . I think the tsunami of backlash is on the horizon .
The most effective way to countervail weak science is to employ better fact gathering and reasoning.
Scientific literature has long contained erroneous assumptions, facts, and conclusions. This may be par for the course of human history. Journals only do reviews and peer reviews of manuscripts, they do not promise the papers are accurate.
Good that Wiley closed four journals.
In general, there needs to be more attention to the quality of articles. There was an economist at the Univ. of Chicago who wrote only about three papers across a long career. He was awarded a Nobel, because he had original insights to express.
Before World War 2, the Federal government provided very little funding to universities for research endeavors. There may be too much fiscal generosity nowadays for unpromising topics.
This is where the problems really started. Lots of grad students were needed to do the work. That produced too many PhDs with good skills but no real questions to investigate. Meaningless research that had to get published somewhere. Multiple authors, sometimes more authors than subjects. More money from NIH based on esg. A generation of scientists poorly trained now serving as reviewers. What could possibly go wrong.
In my experience with research work at universities only in the "hard" sciences and engineering were research results not for sale, but only because technology can't be faked, not that techies are angels.
The problems were in the biological and "soft" sciences like geology and meteorology, and economics, and the social sciences (to risk an oxymoron). The reality of those subjects are more complex compared to physics and chemistry, mainly because it's almost impossible to model those systems mathematically, at least in any analytical way. That yields lots of room for fudge factors and assumptions of initial conditions and boundary conditions that very much affect model results. Basically, not unlike statistics, one can "prove" just about anything if the "fine printed" assumptions aren't disclosed or read.
The reputation of what we now - or recently - called science was based on the real-world successes of the hard sciences of yesteryear, so the word "science" became synonymous with truth. Obviously, that word is used too often to mask what really goes on, which is research and the search for truth, not certainty. More like educated guesses subject to revisions.
But in the sound bite world of low attention span, too often inherently complex and incomplete subjects are "dummed down" for public consumption and that provides narratives for political issues.
Pandora's box was blown wide open when that university climate change riff raff doctored their climate change models to maintain their government grants. When no one gives a shit, shit happens.
In America today, you can beat someone senseless, rob them, get caught in the act and be home for breakfast.
When I was in research (early 80's), the phrase "publish or perish" was used by everyone. That's because your chance of getting any grants to fund your research was directly based upon how many publications you had. It spurred a lot of "joint" papers where you would have 10 authors from many different labs collaborating on one research paper (just so that they could increase their publication numbers).
Apparently the "quality" of the research, wasn't as important to the granting institutions, though the topic had to be something that was "in vogue" that year.
"We are increasingly on our own" is well put, but not just in medicine. This is happening across the expertise spectrum. Perhaps part of it is attributable to the growing use of AI tools, but far too often it appears that it is just that our institutions and systems are increasingly churning out incompetents.
Right on John! the recent (and ongoing) covax scam is just one of the most obvious - but luckily it has woken up a lot of people to the danger of relying on "the authorities" for health or medical truth - especially with vaccines and other poisons (pharma drugs).
https://usawatchdog.com/trump-guilty-missiles-fired-on-russia-rubinos-analysis/ : 24 minutes in.
The world where the fakeness is the reality is the world where WWIII ain't gonna happen because of nukes. The WE, the Elohim that I channel, the Spiritual World that is the Real Intelligence, RI, known too as Brahma teaches the truth. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't happen as reported and repeated over and over and over again for the past almost-80 years.
https://katherinebrannenartist.com/kitty-licks/962-the-reality-that-no-nuclear-attacks-since-the-1940s-trick-photography-created-them-is-the-truth-that.html
Now Kitty Licks is merely a pussy with tits, so hearing her might not happen. And her best boyfriend is the 30+ years now dead ghost of Kurt Cobain. Yes. He flies like Casper but looks like Kurt, cute as ever. So that might be too weird to stomach but...
Check out the truth. Now think about the people trying to use fake science to enforce pandemic realities that then force toxic injections to "stay safe" from fictional diseases. Think of near constant warfare since 1945. Think about the Manhattan Project's owners, the really really really really rich and connected people, "the elite", that rely on servants to do everything for them...These incompetents created the nukes in secret? Nukes that haven't been used again since 1945 but have created the existential threat that always lingers and NATO and constant non-nuclear war going on and intelligence agencies and outrageous defense budgets and $trillions missing from the Pentagon, etc....All while they are bankrupting the USA and depopulating other countries, Vietnam and Iraq for instance, to "keep us safe from the __________ threat".
Why haven't they used the nukes to thin out the people more quickly? Why? Because the nuclear fission didn't ever really happen. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were simply carpet bombed just like Berlin was. And the Hollywood world was employed to produce the images that show "mushroom clouds" forming superimposed on burning fires with big explosion sounds. Now that sounds plausible, right?
Money changers are the really big folks that must be dethroned. Decentralize currency control and abolish the IRS. Take away the money changers', the banking cartels', monopoly on money creation. And taxes are needed why?
Now think again about the reality that Kitty Licks is talking to you about the world where the Spiritual is real. The spiritual too is there to remember that loading up on guns means somebody will be shot dead.
Loading up on trust, responsibility, honesty, kindness and, simply put, the old fashioned Golden Rule means what? A better world? Huh?
Life is the truth that the going home to another world will be when the realities are that the world isn't the thing to be bought and sold but the home to the spiritual needs too and too the home to the animals that are in fact actually free, except the farm animals that provide the nourishment to the many people starving on the Animal Farm of Orwell's massively grand novel.
God is real. And God wants a better world. And the Holy Spirit is the Brahma. God wants the animals to be able to be allowed more space too.
https://youtu.be/N3NA17CCboA?si=P9B3_qCnLues3hQO
This is, unfortunately, nothing new. I recall back in my undergraduate days (early 1980s) purchasing an interesting book on this very topic. Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1126068.Betrayers_of_the_Truth) took a deep dive into the incentivisations within science/academia that led many researchers to 'cook the books' as it were. Tenure. Research grants. 'Fame'. And a host of other influences (including the 'publish or perish' mentality) all have an impact. This text challenged my view of science as some great 'objective' arbiter of the truth and convinced me that everything needs to be questioned. Everything.
The leveraging of science by politics is also nothing new. I can't help but think of the eugenics movement in this way (see Dr. Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man for more on this). And when people make such arguments about the 'science' supporting a sociopolitical movement or policy, I always have to ask: Whose science? Which science?
While the scientific method may be the ideal means of zeroing in on some ideal and 'objective' universal 'truths', it is carried out by and interpreted via totally subjective humans and all their foibles and biases.
Far too many place science and scientists upon an 'objective' pedestal with little consideration of the socio-cultural, -political, and -economic influences that impact the practice and its practitioners.
A quote at the beginning of a paper critical of the 'renewable energy transition' by Megan Seibert and ecologist Dr Bill Rees resonates with me: "We begin with a reminder that humans are storytellers by nature. We socially construct complex sets of facts, beliefs, and values that guide how we operate in the world. Indeed, humans act out of their socially constructed narratives as if they were real. All political ideologies, religious doctrines, economic paradigms, cultural narratives—even scientific theories—are socially constructed “stories” that may or may not accurately reflect any aspect of reality they purport to represent. Once a particular construct has taken hold, its adherents are likely to treat it more seriously than opposing evidence from an alternate conceptual framework."
"While the scientific method may be the ideal means of zeroing in on some ideal and 'objective' universal 'truths', it is carried out by and interpreted via totally subjective humans and all their foibles and biases."
Strongly disagree with the above. When you apply the Scientific Method you are given a set of test conditions and an outcome in support of a hypothesis. You get a yes or no answer. That is the beauty of the method. It is a reproducible fact. Not the mumbo jumbo you describe.
We will have to agree to disagree. Virtually every test ‘result’ must be interpreted by humans and through their personal lens. As often happens, identical/observable phenomena can be interpreted in a variety of ways (and sometimes diametrically-opposed ways). It is rarely if ever a ‘yes-no’ choice—especially for the ‘non-physical’ sciences.
Catalyst A improves run yield by 2.3% when compared with catalyst B. It either does or it doesn't.
When you drift from the physical sciences, you can no longer define your test conditions accurately. How can you test for an outcome if you can't reproduce the test conditions? As such, you can't apply the scientific method.
I don’t disagree. As soon as one begins to analyse complex systems with their nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena all bets are off. It is a relatively small portion of phenomena where all variables can be controlled for and undergo repeated testing.
Good stuff Steve. We agree.
On another front, there's been a huge wave of unethical retractions of high quality medical papers with inconvenient findings during the covid era. And it's likely many quality papers simply cannot get published as they can't find a journal that will accept the backlash from publishing results that Big Pharma doesn't like. This has been a problem for many years when it comes to the efficacy of low-profit medicine, or findings critical of current high-profit medicine, but it accelerated massively during covid.
In medicine, the replication crisis is also partly due to major institutions (*cough*Harvard*cough*) doing studies on alternative medicine intentionally wrong, so that they fail to get the same results as the many smaller, less well-funded studies that were showing a lot of promise. As a biostatistician I'd never claim you can't lie with statistics, but more often it's in the way the study was set up -- the devil is usually in the Methods section. Use the wrong dose, wrong formulation, wrong instructions for participants, and lo and behold, your $5 million study doesn't replicate what 26 other tiny well-done studies found. And guess which study gets alllll the media headlines? Another form of corruption in itself.
I wonder what religion they were?
As the author of specifications for high pressure , high temperature valves for European nuclear PWR plants in the late 1970's , I can tell you that the 'VAXX' had virtually zero Quality Assurance or Quality Control standards . The batch to batch variabilty in VAERS proves it !
My parents went to get vaccinated at the same time in late March 2021, but my mom's name was not on some required list, so she was unable to get vaccinated. She received the vaccine a few days later at a different location. Their second doses were similarly at these two separate locations on different days. Both my father's doses, Moderna 030A21A and 017B21A, are very near the top of the list of bad batches; my mother's are nowhere near the top of the bad batches list in VAERS. Good thing her name wasn't on that list that day or I might have lost both of my parents instead of only my father, in June 2021. He was 72 and in good health until the vaccine. Straight downhill with idiopathic multiple organ failure after that (ruled out sepsis while he was alive, but officially, sepsis).
That is heartbreaking ! Sorry for the loss of your father and for the other millions who likewise have lost beloved family members . I think the tsunami of backlash is on the horizon .
The most effective way to countervail weak science is to employ better fact gathering and reasoning.
Scientific literature has long contained erroneous assumptions, facts, and conclusions. This may be par for the course of human history. Journals only do reviews and peer reviews of manuscripts, they do not promise the papers are accurate.
Good that Wiley closed four journals.
In general, there needs to be more attention to the quality of articles. There was an economist at the Univ. of Chicago who wrote only about three papers across a long career. He was awarded a Nobel, because he had original insights to express.
Before World War 2, the Federal government provided very little funding to universities for research endeavors. There may be too much fiscal generosity nowadays for unpromising topics.
This is where the problems really started. Lots of grad students were needed to do the work. That produced too many PhDs with good skills but no real questions to investigate. Meaningless research that had to get published somewhere. Multiple authors, sometimes more authors than subjects. More money from NIH based on esg. A generation of scientists poorly trained now serving as reviewers. What could possibly go wrong.
In my experience with research work at universities only in the "hard" sciences and engineering were research results not for sale, but only because technology can't be faked, not that techies are angels.
The problems were in the biological and "soft" sciences like geology and meteorology, and economics, and the social sciences (to risk an oxymoron). The reality of those subjects are more complex compared to physics and chemistry, mainly because it's almost impossible to model those systems mathematically, at least in any analytical way. That yields lots of room for fudge factors and assumptions of initial conditions and boundary conditions that very much affect model results. Basically, not unlike statistics, one can "prove" just about anything if the "fine printed" assumptions aren't disclosed or read.
The reputation of what we now - or recently - called science was based on the real-world successes of the hard sciences of yesteryear, so the word "science" became synonymous with truth. Obviously, that word is used too often to mask what really goes on, which is research and the search for truth, not certainty. More like educated guesses subject to revisions.
But in the sound bite world of low attention span, too often inherently complex and incomplete subjects are "dummed down" for public consumption and that provides narratives for political issues.
"Climate change" is a classic example.
Pandora's box was blown wide open when that university climate change riff raff doctored their climate change models to maintain their government grants. When no one gives a shit, shit happens.
In America today, you can beat someone senseless, rob them, get caught in the act and be home for breakfast.
When I was in research (early 80's), the phrase "publish or perish" was used by everyone. That's because your chance of getting any grants to fund your research was directly based upon how many publications you had. It spurred a lot of "joint" papers where you would have 10 authors from many different labs collaborating on one research paper (just so that they could increase their publication numbers).
Apparently the "quality" of the research, wasn't as important to the granting institutions, though the topic had to be something that was "in vogue" that year.
"We are increasingly on our own" is well put, but not just in medicine. This is happening across the expertise spectrum. Perhaps part of it is attributable to the growing use of AI tools, but far too often it appears that it is just that our institutions and systems are increasingly churning out incompetents.
At least this info got published n msm! There must be a wind change going on! Yay
Right on John! the recent (and ongoing) covax scam is just one of the most obvious - but luckily it has woken up a lot of people to the danger of relying on "the authorities" for health or medical truth - especially with vaccines and other poisons (pharma drugs).
Thanks for the timely piece, John.