What is wrong with Baylor University? They persecuted Peter McCullough, a brilliant and highly ethical cardiologist, and continue to employ Peter Hotez. In each case, they are on the wrong side of history. I hope that the President of Baylor, Linda A. Livingstone, Ph.D., will recognize the damage that is being caused to the reputation of the University, and will take appropriate corrective actions.
It's more important to be on the right side of truth than history, since history will only get things right if enough people are on the right side of truth. Peter Hotez sounds like he's afraid of the truth.
Higher education is failing us. It’s time to take a hard look at what exactly it is that they’re offering society anymore. Because it seems to me they hurt more than help these days.
According to the Dallas Morning News on July 29,2021, "Baylor sued McCullough on Wednesday in Dallas County district court, alleging he continues to use his former Baylor titles, including vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, in violation of a February separation agreement."
Baylor University in Waco Texas, President Livingstone , have no affiliation to Baylor Scott and White hospital and the Baylor Medical School. At one time they did , but not since 1969.
Thank you for your candor. I absolutely loved Joe Rogan and JFK podcast. I will most likely listen to it again. Critical debate is returning, slowly, and I am prayerful that MORE mental health counselors and physicians will challenge themselves with ALL information in order to make good judgements about what is really happening to us as "humans". Thank you Dr. McCollough. MY PROFESSION NEEDS a healthy dose of critical thought too as does the medical side. You are not alone.
The idea of vaccination was based on the well established fact that milk maids, who were exposed to cowpox, did not get small pox. The later attempts at vaccination ignored two aspects of this.
The milk maids were exposed to cowpox in the same manner that they would later be exposed to small pox - through their respiratory system. We don't fully understand the immune system but have recently recognized that that bypassing the respiratory entry makes a difference in how the body reacts.
The cowpox virus could not reproduce in humans so it was inherently safe as a "vaccine". The challenge when using the smallpox virus, or any other one that can infect humans, is how to inactivate it while still generating an immune response. The milk maids received a steady exposure to the cowpox virus so their bodies mounted a response. A single shot of a fully inactivated virus does not present the same challenge and therefore isn't as effective. This led to the use of adjuvants in modern vaccines.
The contaminants, and now adjuvants, preservatives, etc. all create their own set of unknown dangers.
All of this is ignored in the classic explanation of vaccines.
I wholeheartedly agree, and therefore I plan to avoid all injected vaccines for airborne pathogens. Currently I wonder if there exists some commonly used vaccine that does more good than harm. For example, does a tetanus vaccine prevent much more disease than it causes harmful side effects?
Interesting background/history info. My understanding is that the mRNA Covid 19 jabs do not stimulate the immune response of upper airway mucosal cells to the extent (or at all) that an actual SARS-CoV-2 infection does. Yet, these same upper airway mucosal cells are a critical part of the body's first line of defense!
The shots are not guaranteed to prevent infection. They're also not guaranteed to prevent disease transmission.
I think the shots do not work well to stimulate upper airway immunity. We also know that the shots do not protect well against infection or reinfection for very long, like maybe 3 to 6 months. There is also at least one study that suggests that vaccinated people are actually more likely to get infected or reinfected than an unvaccinated person who has natural immunity from a prior infection (Cleveland Clinic study).
Nevertheless, the CDC keeps saying that these shots prevent serious and deadly Covid 19 cases. But how can any of us trust what the CDC says any more? Walensky tried hard many times to *avoid* giving honest, direct answers at congressional hearings. The CDC seems like a bunch of bullshit artists to me. And I used to trust it.
Those shots are shit. They don't do anything but make people sick or kill them.
To this day, there is no proof that I know about (I'm not saying that someone hasn't done any dive into it) that the shots prevented anybody from anything.
You should read the book, Dissolving Illusions by Humphries, for a better historical account of the small pox inoculation fiasco. After reading that book, I had a very rude awakening to just how badly the public (myself included) has been duped and brainwashed into thinking that vaccination is nothing but a wonderful scientific advancement and has only saved lives with nothing more to see. I still remember the high school class where our teacher taught us the miracle of vaccination and it's amazing, humble beginnings. Such garbage propaganda. Thank goodness I came across all of this truthful information before my grandchildren were born and before the "covid vaccine" fraud. Once you know, you know. The silver lining of the pandemic response is that it has opened many eyes to what is actually going on now and it has opened many eyes to the fraudulent historical accounts of what actually happened in the past.
Dr. Kotez has a serious issue with credibility. He is a Medical professor, his specialty is Tropical Medicine, yet he feels comfortable attacking people about vaccines or Covid publicly, but won’t engage in a serious academic debate where each party can defend their position. He won’t even acknowledge that famous Epidemiologists and Infectious Disease experts who are more well versed than he could ever be on this subject also don’t agree with him. That tells me as a practicing physician, that any medical student or resident who is forced to endure a rotation or lecture by him, will do whatever they have to do to appease his incredible ignorance so they can move on to the next rotation without blemish. I saw this happen many times in training. We all knew who the tyrants were and quickly learned how to maneuver within the system. There will always be ego driven, arrogant doctors, but this one is spineless.
"I have often thought of Mather as a striking example of how we may be inclined to believe in a purportedly scientific proposition in much the same way as we adopt an article of religious faith." Dr. McCullough I had this identical insight a few years back, in the context of the evolution/creation debate. I'm a lifelong devotee of science & believe in evolution. However it occurred to me one day that my "belief in evolution" shares a lot of features with people's "belief in creation". a) I've never observed evolution directly. Rather I take on faith the words I read in books & hear from my professors. b) Unlike a good scientific theory which by Popper's maxim must be falsifiable, evolution is not a good subject for double blind random-sample studies. c) Like religious fanatics through the ages, scientists can become rather emotional if their belief is challenged. I'm still a devout believer in evolution but that course of thought did humble me somewhat.
Humans have always had the belief in "myth." Reason is limited. We often just totally make stuff up. The biggest myth today is science. Maybe sometimes those old stories that at least had morals were better. The myth of perfect science troubles me. I had long on-line discussions with these persons. They had no idea what I was talking about. They could not recognize their own delusion, or why anyone would question science. Come to think of it, the longer I live the more questions emerge about Darwin. I just recently picked up a book by Bruce J. Lipton, tenth anniversary edition that takes a whole different approach. One main criticism of Darwin is that "survival of the fittest" is grim. But animal/plant life proliferates. There are seemingly infinite varieties. Most of it is beautiful and not grim. Nature did a great job, over the enormous span of time involved. We have very little idea of how all of this happened. Darwinian evolution (actually discovered simultaneously by Alfred Wallace but dont mention that little fact!) does not really explain the whole thing. You are correct above: we take science on faith. Which is not how science says it works!
There is a great deal of evidence evolution theory is wrong. Many quiet and - shall we say - "under the radar" scientists and science philosophers have opined on Darwin's theory and found it wrong. The first that come to my mind is Stephen Meyer and Dr. Lennox, but there are many more. You owe it to yourself to reexamine the theory, especially as Darwin proposed it as "theory" and not fact.
"Myth", "religion" and "science" are none of them "all or nothing" They are not inter-changeable words. All have value and should be considered in their respective domain.
No, contrary to what you are saying, I am saying those are all beliefs. Thus pretty interchangeable, unless you can think of a specific example where it is not so. I am not saying you cannot find special cases, but what are they?
Okay, so...let my little brain take a shot at this but first confess that there exist bigger brains who are more capable. Sincerity of seeking the truth should cause you to look to those giants, not me. But out of affection for a fellow "substacker" - the best online thought reflectors I have ever experienced in over a decade of commenting - I will make an effort, Jacob.
"Science" is a method, not a belief. Science explores the created world with the end to "have understanding" of what it is; to know it in a way so that taking within the knowledge of the studied subject the two - object and explorer - can together use/live together better. Interestingly, while Darwin explored man he came to believe man "evolved" and proposed that theory; he did not "settle the science" but himself died before man's understanding on "man" itself "evolved" away from the theory. Scientist are more apt to say "man has adapted to his environment, not evolved."
Myths are a non-scientific way to understand the created world. They are a form of communication that simplifies complex mysteries and allows for remote subjects to take on the burden of human struggle. "Atlas" is a great example of that; he is said to take on the burden of holding up heaven and earth which we can imagine to be a huge "struggle" but also a mere reference to him speaks volumes to those familiar with that myth without having to actually explicate the full meaning. The Greek and Roman myths have formed many of the words spoken in the Western languages. Myths are in every culture and family - your family probably has a few, I know mine does - everywhere and as a person matures they usually "get" that while they are not "true" they contain truths that are helpful to guide us through turbulence.
Im going to diagree 100% on rhe ststment that we all make things up. I dinnot ever engage in that. The only thing of value i own is my integrity. I can see your premise in that argument. It's the blanketness of it that i disgeee with . My experience with people is thr following. People will swear that they want the truth, yes please. But in reality, they only want the truth if it aligns with whst is already in their mind.
I have been described as tell it like it is, no nonsense, gives it to you straight, mean, uncaring, no empathy (that is rhe biggest joke of them all) no filter (i have a filter) but when i am in the compsny of adults or ppl that are supposed to BE adults, i will a drop an F bomb maybe a lot of them these days.
One thing i do not lie, and i get pissy when people rewrite something i already wrote, or rhey give this answer to an imaginary comment.
This partly is bc of the lack of critical reading/thinking skills, the children are not getting what they need in school and too much adult shit.
Poor wee ones.
I took have been thinking about Darwin, since this all began. As you probably have recognized, I am not a scholarly writer, I am not a doctor, but I have completed all but 3 quarters of Bachelor Nursing program. I give thanks to that and Ms. S in the library for helping me become an adroit researcher. Being able to distinguish BS from something that may have credibility online is worth all the pots at the end rainbows. I did that program in my 40's and I didn't even own a laptop.😂 I firmly believe that being online all the time will dull your brain in certain areas, I can not prove it, but just look around at millennials and Gen Z.
Anyway back to Darwin. This is my take on survival of the fittest.
Quite simply be want talking so much about outward attributes, but rather our brains ability to adapt, question, and be at the fence when the other side comes to knock the fence down, infiltrate and assimilate.
Humans are endowed with reason, and they use reason to make up nice stories. In the history of the human race, that is what they have used reason for. A human can also reason privately, but that is what reason is used for socially. It is used to come up with myths. This is just what humans do. ALL primitive (so-called) human groups have these stories. But we think we are different! Because ,then when "science" comes along people just get more arrogant than ever before and soon all the vaccines are perfect and people are ignoring simple things like the fact that they were not rigorously tested according to the normal rules so laboriously put in place. I am very disappointed in science, in the sense of how well humans have put it to use. The intersection between science and profit is another big area. As soon as people get their hands on it, they use science to "make up" the myth of their own credentials. That guy Richard Feynman is much, much better on this topic. But nobody cares about what he says (that everything should be able to be explained simply). So, humans are always the same. They say that *these* myths are different but they know that now "science" can turn them into the undisputed geniuses. And that is the kind of power people like. So, the science myth is the biggest myth ever, not some kind of victory for truth. Because ultimate truth is not easy to put into words. I appreciate a good scholar. These people really do like truth and I appreciate those persons a lot. Now as for Darwin, the ability to adapt and question seems more like the kind of thing Bruce H. Lipton is saying. That is not predesignated in the genes. The ability to adapt is in fact exactly what Lipton (tea bag king?) is saying the Darwinians do not pay much attention to. To adapt and question is right up LIpton's alley I think, and it is NOT simply a function of the physical structure of what a gene is. I was already thinking this was and Lipton is one of the really scientific minds, in a good way. I am more of a "humanist" in inclination but I had some experience of original ideas in economics so that is why I do this stuff. I am saying that EVERY human group until three hundred years ago had myth as an important part of their life systems and why should we think humans have suddenly changed from that? They suddenly got it all together in the last three hundred years??? And that is why this world is doing so well, right? All that fu*king science stuff. But, I mean, if a person does a good job with the objective, science stuff that is fine by mean and, as I already said, I do appreciate that.
Here’s my problem. The second law of thermodynamics particularly “entropy” is a easily understood, ubiquitous “law”. Evolution flies in the face of entropy. There is no question there are genetic changes/evolution within species it’s the species jumps that are less able to be explained.
Yes, that is what Darwin does not explain well. (ie species jumps). The only ones making an orderly critique are the "creationists," and they are usually just dismissed out of hand. This is not correct. I don't agree with a lot of it either, but if you look over the creationist books, they are deeply engaged in these issues and they have a lot to say. Science? It evolved into a real disaster, didn't it? What seems to have broken down is CULTURE. Culture sustained human beings for many years before there was even science. Hey, I am very satisfied with the results my post got. I will need to review which the hell Substack I am even on. But TWO persons have given me great answers. (There are always lots of posts over on my own subdomain/substack.)
Honestly, equating mRNA transfection with traditional vaccination (regardless of the issues with latter) automatically disqualified Hotez and his ilk from being taken seriously. The push of the covid shots has exposed these types of folks for the pharma grifters they are.
re: point 3, another side of the argument is that there really is some valuable immune system training from being infected by a different corona virus. i.e. SARS-CoV-1 survivors from 20+ years ago were shown to be capable of mounting an immune response to SARS-CoV-2. and newer evidence shows that people who'd been infected with a totally different corona virus related to the common cold also had some cross immunity. finally, even the Covid 19 mRNA pushers themselves keep telling us that the original version of the Covid 19 mRNA vaccine benefited people long after the original strain was gone and newer SARS-CoV-2 strains became dominant (of course, what they refuse to say is that natural immunity is really valuable and protective).
Cross immunity from SARS-CoV-1 and from other corona viruses might bolster my point, since in those cases the immune systems had been exposed to a set of more than two dozen proteins, not just a single one.
The message from the mRNA pushers is suspect since they used abysmal math, dubious experimental techniques during trials, and inexcusable followup techniques. See Norman Fenton's work for a deep-dive on the math.
Bottom line: even if there is some possible benefits for weeks 2-13 (or whatever) after an mRNA jab, long-term the vactines (as Brandon calls them) are INeffective in addition to being UNsafe.
OTOH, on your point 3a it seems 50/50 because the human immune system can generalize to an extent. exposure to protein A may give some cross immunity to protein A'. but in support of 3a it does seem like it's better to target the currently live strain than to target an extinct strain.
so maybe it's "semi self-contradictory"? IDK. I recall Vinay Prasad questioning it when they kept on pushing the original version of the vaccine many months after the original and alpha strain were extinct in the wild. he noted that mRNA technology was supposed to let them swap out the viral protein mRNA easily. and yet they didn't do that until months later with the bivalent booster. so, once again, they misled everyone at the start.
You're right, I am way out of my depth to have a strong conviction on 3a. Of course it seems like the whole Vaccine Industrial Complex is way out of their depth too.
The problem is, according to my reading, that during such natural infections, each individual makes immune memory (via nk, tcell, epigenetic changes to secretory igA antibodies, and eventually Bcells) to very different protein fragments found in both structural (e.g. spike) and non-structural proteins (RNA- dependent RNA polymerase). This makes us all very different.
The only way to mimic this is via traditional live-attenuated vaccines which go through the same entry (e.g. mucosal).
They're not a whole lot safer than getting a natural infection at that point.
They're a very good reasons why this normal immune cascade (from innate to humoral, tcell confirmation of bcells etc..) needs to happen. Vaccines seem a poor approximation, especially for respiratory pathogens and mRNA transfections by their very design pose a terrible risk of autoimmunity issues.
It's the unique form of stupidity described by Bonhoeffer. It's crucial to understand that the so-called intelligent of society can also be very, very stupid. Reading between the lines, Bonhoeffer's essay describes what some today call "mass formation" - this is true - Mark Crispin Miller:
“I have called the period from 2020 to the present a propaganda masterpiece….This is the most frightening thing of all: This one has succeeded by making people do it willingly…What the Covid crisis did as propaganda is make millions of people desperate to get a “vaccination.” I mean it’s like getting people to elbow each other out of the way to get on board the cattle cars.”
This is 100% true. Look at any critically-thinking scientist's analysis of the shots. For example, Dr. Denis Rancourt in Canada. His team provides data-backed analysis that the SHOTS have murdered 13+ million people, which correlates with Ed Dowd's data on death and injury in the USA.
It is painfully obvious that "vaccines", ALL vaccines, do nothing but harm people - from day 1 until the present day. They are tools of population control; they always have been.
See "Dissolving Illusions", "Turtles All The Way Down" or any Judy Mikovits book - she found out what was up years ago and they cancelled her.
could it be that, because the US postwar labor and job market continues to sink to lower and lower depths, people are just frightened to death of losing their hard won employment, their careers? they'll say or do anything just to keep their careers on track. the economy is just that bad now. people don't have any alternatives. once they take your medical license, or fire you from your company for being a "denier" -- it goes on social media and the internet never forgets. you become a permanent pariah, an American untouchable. in short, the economy is really bad now. people just want to remain in the segment of society that still has a roof over its head and some food on the table.
No. That's the whole point of "Live Not By Lies". When you live the lie, you become a hollow shell of your true self. When you choose money over truth, everything of value goes down the drain. There is no real "healthcare" in the United States via corporate hospitals. Peace.
His response was all we needed to know. Demand an enormous amount of money so you have an excuse to say no. I pity him because deep down in his soul he knows what caused his daughter’s autism. RFK is for medical freedom and despite the fact I’m not on board with his global warming views, with 6 grandchildren I want my kids to have the choice. My - year old grandson started twitching after the HIB shot. My daughter twitches now from the rabies vaccine. So we are done with this stuff
So there it is... the difference between an intellectual person and one anchored in conspiracy and superstition.
Despite your previous position or opinion on the historical debate on vaccines, with the added personal connection you are entertaining a discussion publicly that could challenge everything you have thought prior to now. Intellectual,practical,reality based decisions.
Yet on the other hand... Highly praised Mr. Science persona must resort to the court of superficial public whimsy to defend his position, refusing offhand to belittle his scientific expertise with so absurd a discussion.
Comical yes , funny no.
Disturbing? Very. It is a battle being waged of beliefs and religious adoration, and the majority of people have no idea how silly the assumed knowledge they think they have really is.
What is wrong with Baylor University? They persecuted Peter McCullough, a brilliant and highly ethical cardiologist, and continue to employ Peter Hotez. In each case, they are on the wrong side of history. I hope that the President of Baylor, Linda A. Livingstone, Ph.D., will recognize the damage that is being caused to the reputation of the University, and will take appropriate corrective actions.
It's more important to be on the right side of truth than history, since history will only get things right if enough people are on the right side of truth. Peter Hotez sounds like he's afraid of the truth.
Higher education is failing us. It’s time to take a hard look at what exactly it is that they’re offering society anymore. Because it seems to me they hurt more than help these days.
Check it out, but I don’t think they are connected. The Hospital is a totally separate institution from the medical school and University.
According to the Dallas Morning News on July 29,2021, "Baylor sued McCullough on Wednesday in Dallas County district court, alleging he continues to use his former Baylor titles, including vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, in violation of a February separation agreement."
https://www.zippia.com/baylor-college-of-medicine-careers-1329205/history/
Baylor University in Waco Texas, President Livingstone , have no affiliation to Baylor Scott and White hospital and the Baylor Medical School. At one time they did , but not since 1969.
That being said, as an alumni of BU, I do think there is a lot wrong with Baylor! Woke-ish ;)
Yes its my understanding that they dropped that case.
They are connected.
Democrats will never debate. They are wrong. They know they are wrong. So they posture and call truth "misinformation".
Such obvious skullduggery yet…democrats retain millions of followers. It boggles the mind.
For any compensation, the Imperial/Feudal Fascists will be a "HARD NAY" on any forum with Constitutional Capitalists on even the 'BRIGHTEST DAY'.
RFK Jr is a Democrat.
Thank you for your candor. I absolutely loved Joe Rogan and JFK podcast. I will most likely listen to it again. Critical debate is returning, slowly, and I am prayerful that MORE mental health counselors and physicians will challenge themselves with ALL information in order to make good judgements about what is really happening to us as "humans". Thank you Dr. McCollough. MY PROFESSION NEEDS a healthy dose of critical thought too as does the medical side. You are not alone.
Funny typo there in the first line. :) That said, I get your point .
my mistake... changed.
No maam its not returning if the only spaces that allow all rhe sides ro be presented.
The.
The idea of vaccination was based on the well established fact that milk maids, who were exposed to cowpox, did not get small pox. The later attempts at vaccination ignored two aspects of this.
The milk maids were exposed to cowpox in the same manner that they would later be exposed to small pox - through their respiratory system. We don't fully understand the immune system but have recently recognized that that bypassing the respiratory entry makes a difference in how the body reacts.
The cowpox virus could not reproduce in humans so it was inherently safe as a "vaccine". The challenge when using the smallpox virus, or any other one that can infect humans, is how to inactivate it while still generating an immune response. The milk maids received a steady exposure to the cowpox virus so their bodies mounted a response. A single shot of a fully inactivated virus does not present the same challenge and therefore isn't as effective. This led to the use of adjuvants in modern vaccines.
The contaminants, and now adjuvants, preservatives, etc. all create their own set of unknown dangers.
All of this is ignored in the classic explanation of vaccines.
I wholeheartedly agree, and therefore I plan to avoid all injected vaccines for airborne pathogens. Currently I wonder if there exists some commonly used vaccine that does more good than harm. For example, does a tetanus vaccine prevent much more disease than it causes harmful side effects?
Interesting background/history info. My understanding is that the mRNA Covid 19 jabs do not stimulate the immune response of upper airway mucosal cells to the extent (or at all) that an actual SARS-CoV-2 infection does. Yet, these same upper airway mucosal cells are a critical part of the body's first line of defense!
Is that an idirect way to ssy that the shot do NOT WORK?
The shots are not guaranteed to prevent infection. They're also not guaranteed to prevent disease transmission.
I think the shots do not work well to stimulate upper airway immunity. We also know that the shots do not protect well against infection or reinfection for very long, like maybe 3 to 6 months. There is also at least one study that suggests that vaccinated people are actually more likely to get infected or reinfected than an unvaccinated person who has natural immunity from a prior infection (Cleveland Clinic study).
Nevertheless, the CDC keeps saying that these shots prevent serious and deadly Covid 19 cases. But how can any of us trust what the CDC says any more? Walensky tried hard many times to *avoid* giving honest, direct answers at congressional hearings. The CDC seems like a bunch of bullshit artists to me. And I used to trust it.
Oh honey. I should have put sarcastic rhetoric after my comment.
I was being sarcastic in my comment to you. I apologize that I failed to write that out beside it. It's been a long day.
Ah. Ok. Got it. I didn't see the sarcasm! Thanks for clarifying.
Those shots are shit. They don't do anything but make people sick or kill them.
To this day, there is no proof that I know about (I'm not saying that someone hasn't done any dive into it) that the shots prevented anybody from anything.
Whoaaa Nelly. Are you seriously writing some type of educational piece about these shots? To me?
Outstanding - next do Walensky, then Baric, then Daszak and The Evil Gnome.....
"evil gnome" :-)
You should read the book, Dissolving Illusions by Humphries, for a better historical account of the small pox inoculation fiasco. After reading that book, I had a very rude awakening to just how badly the public (myself included) has been duped and brainwashed into thinking that vaccination is nothing but a wonderful scientific advancement and has only saved lives with nothing more to see. I still remember the high school class where our teacher taught us the miracle of vaccination and it's amazing, humble beginnings. Such garbage propaganda. Thank goodness I came across all of this truthful information before my grandchildren were born and before the "covid vaccine" fraud. Once you know, you know. The silver lining of the pandemic response is that it has opened many eyes to what is actually going on now and it has opened many eyes to the fraudulent historical accounts of what actually happened in the past.
Dr. Kotez has a serious issue with credibility. He is a Medical professor, his specialty is Tropical Medicine, yet he feels comfortable attacking people about vaccines or Covid publicly, but won’t engage in a serious academic debate where each party can defend their position. He won’t even acknowledge that famous Epidemiologists and Infectious Disease experts who are more well versed than he could ever be on this subject also don’t agree with him. That tells me as a practicing physician, that any medical student or resident who is forced to endure a rotation or lecture by him, will do whatever they have to do to appease his incredible ignorance so they can move on to the next rotation without blemish. I saw this happen many times in training. We all knew who the tyrants were and quickly learned how to maneuver within the system. There will always be ego driven, arrogant doctors, but this one is spineless.
Jordan Peterson's interpretation of Alexander Solzhenitsyn says that appeasing incredible ignorance is a very dangerous and corrupting thing to do.
"I have often thought of Mather as a striking example of how we may be inclined to believe in a purportedly scientific proposition in much the same way as we adopt an article of religious faith." Dr. McCullough I had this identical insight a few years back, in the context of the evolution/creation debate. I'm a lifelong devotee of science & believe in evolution. However it occurred to me one day that my "belief in evolution" shares a lot of features with people's "belief in creation". a) I've never observed evolution directly. Rather I take on faith the words I read in books & hear from my professors. b) Unlike a good scientific theory which by Popper's maxim must be falsifiable, evolution is not a good subject for double blind random-sample studies. c) Like religious fanatics through the ages, scientists can become rather emotional if their belief is challenged. I'm still a devout believer in evolution but that course of thought did humble me somewhat.
Humans have always had the belief in "myth." Reason is limited. We often just totally make stuff up. The biggest myth today is science. Maybe sometimes those old stories that at least had morals were better. The myth of perfect science troubles me. I had long on-line discussions with these persons. They had no idea what I was talking about. They could not recognize their own delusion, or why anyone would question science. Come to think of it, the longer I live the more questions emerge about Darwin. I just recently picked up a book by Bruce J. Lipton, tenth anniversary edition that takes a whole different approach. One main criticism of Darwin is that "survival of the fittest" is grim. But animal/plant life proliferates. There are seemingly infinite varieties. Most of it is beautiful and not grim. Nature did a great job, over the enormous span of time involved. We have very little idea of how all of this happened. Darwinian evolution (actually discovered simultaneously by Alfred Wallace but dont mention that little fact!) does not really explain the whole thing. You are correct above: we take science on faith. Which is not how science says it works!
Bruce H. NOT Bruce J.
"The Biology of Belief" is the book
There is a great deal of evidence evolution theory is wrong. Many quiet and - shall we say - "under the radar" scientists and science philosophers have opined on Darwin's theory and found it wrong. The first that come to my mind is Stephen Meyer and Dr. Lennox, but there are many more. You owe it to yourself to reexamine the theory, especially as Darwin proposed it as "theory" and not fact.
"Myth", "religion" and "science" are none of them "all or nothing" They are not inter-changeable words. All have value and should be considered in their respective domain.
Best of luck and have fun exploring it anew!
No, contrary to what you are saying, I am saying those are all beliefs. Thus pretty interchangeable, unless you can think of a specific example where it is not so. I am not saying you cannot find special cases, but what are they?
Okay, so...let my little brain take a shot at this but first confess that there exist bigger brains who are more capable. Sincerity of seeking the truth should cause you to look to those giants, not me. But out of affection for a fellow "substacker" - the best online thought reflectors I have ever experienced in over a decade of commenting - I will make an effort, Jacob.
"Science" is a method, not a belief. Science explores the created world with the end to "have understanding" of what it is; to know it in a way so that taking within the knowledge of the studied subject the two - object and explorer - can together use/live together better. Interestingly, while Darwin explored man he came to believe man "evolved" and proposed that theory; he did not "settle the science" but himself died before man's understanding on "man" itself "evolved" away from the theory. Scientist are more apt to say "man has adapted to his environment, not evolved."
on to "myth"
Myths are a non-scientific way to understand the created world. They are a form of communication that simplifies complex mysteries and allows for remote subjects to take on the burden of human struggle. "Atlas" is a great example of that; he is said to take on the burden of holding up heaven and earth which we can imagine to be a huge "struggle" but also a mere reference to him speaks volumes to those familiar with that myth without having to actually explicate the full meaning. The Greek and Roman myths have formed many of the words spoken in the Western languages. Myths are in every culture and family - your family probably has a few, I know mine does - everywhere and as a person matures they usually "get" that while they are not "true" they contain truths that are helpful to guide us through turbulence.
Im going to diagree 100% on rhe ststment that we all make things up. I dinnot ever engage in that. The only thing of value i own is my integrity. I can see your premise in that argument. It's the blanketness of it that i disgeee with . My experience with people is thr following. People will swear that they want the truth, yes please. But in reality, they only want the truth if it aligns with whst is already in their mind.
I have been described as tell it like it is, no nonsense, gives it to you straight, mean, uncaring, no empathy (that is rhe biggest joke of them all) no filter (i have a filter) but when i am in the compsny of adults or ppl that are supposed to BE adults, i will a drop an F bomb maybe a lot of them these days.
One thing i do not lie, and i get pissy when people rewrite something i already wrote, or rhey give this answer to an imaginary comment.
This partly is bc of the lack of critical reading/thinking skills, the children are not getting what they need in school and too much adult shit.
Poor wee ones.
I took have been thinking about Darwin, since this all began. As you probably have recognized, I am not a scholarly writer, I am not a doctor, but I have completed all but 3 quarters of Bachelor Nursing program. I give thanks to that and Ms. S in the library for helping me become an adroit researcher. Being able to distinguish BS from something that may have credibility online is worth all the pots at the end rainbows. I did that program in my 40's and I didn't even own a laptop.😂 I firmly believe that being online all the time will dull your brain in certain areas, I can not prove it, but just look around at millennials and Gen Z.
Anyway back to Darwin. This is my take on survival of the fittest.
Quite simply be want talking so much about outward attributes, but rather our brains ability to adapt, question, and be at the fence when the other side comes to knock the fence down, infiltrate and assimilate.
What do you think about my take on Darwin?
Humans are endowed with reason, and they use reason to make up nice stories. In the history of the human race, that is what they have used reason for. A human can also reason privately, but that is what reason is used for socially. It is used to come up with myths. This is just what humans do. ALL primitive (so-called) human groups have these stories. But we think we are different! Because ,then when "science" comes along people just get more arrogant than ever before and soon all the vaccines are perfect and people are ignoring simple things like the fact that they were not rigorously tested according to the normal rules so laboriously put in place. I am very disappointed in science, in the sense of how well humans have put it to use. The intersection between science and profit is another big area. As soon as people get their hands on it, they use science to "make up" the myth of their own credentials. That guy Richard Feynman is much, much better on this topic. But nobody cares about what he says (that everything should be able to be explained simply). So, humans are always the same. They say that *these* myths are different but they know that now "science" can turn them into the undisputed geniuses. And that is the kind of power people like. So, the science myth is the biggest myth ever, not some kind of victory for truth. Because ultimate truth is not easy to put into words. I appreciate a good scholar. These people really do like truth and I appreciate those persons a lot. Now as for Darwin, the ability to adapt and question seems more like the kind of thing Bruce H. Lipton is saying. That is not predesignated in the genes. The ability to adapt is in fact exactly what Lipton (tea bag king?) is saying the Darwinians do not pay much attention to. To adapt and question is right up LIpton's alley I think, and it is NOT simply a function of the physical structure of what a gene is. I was already thinking this was and Lipton is one of the really scientific minds, in a good way. I am more of a "humanist" in inclination but I had some experience of original ideas in economics so that is why I do this stuff. I am saying that EVERY human group until three hundred years ago had myth as an important part of their life systems and why should we think humans have suddenly changed from that? They suddenly got it all together in the last three hundred years??? And that is why this world is doing so well, right? All that fu*king science stuff. But, I mean, if a person does a good job with the objective, science stuff that is fine by mean and, as I already said, I do appreciate that.
Here’s my problem. The second law of thermodynamics particularly “entropy” is a easily understood, ubiquitous “law”. Evolution flies in the face of entropy. There is no question there are genetic changes/evolution within species it’s the species jumps that are less able to be explained.
Yes, that is what Darwin does not explain well. (ie species jumps). The only ones making an orderly critique are the "creationists," and they are usually just dismissed out of hand. This is not correct. I don't agree with a lot of it either, but if you look over the creationist books, they are deeply engaged in these issues and they have a lot to say. Science? It evolved into a real disaster, didn't it? What seems to have broken down is CULTURE. Culture sustained human beings for many years before there was even science. Hey, I am very satisfied with the results my post got. I will need to review which the hell Substack I am even on. But TWO persons have given me great answers. (There are always lots of posts over on my own subdomain/substack.)
He would never debate RFK, he says he’s a cunning lawyer, but what he really means is he’s informed, I’m not, and I would lose :/ He’s chicken sh**!
Honestly, equating mRNA transfection with traditional vaccination (regardless of the issues with latter) automatically disqualified Hotez and his ilk from being taken seriously. The push of the covid shots has exposed these types of folks for the pharma grifters they are.
Indeed, even if there exists at least one worthwhile vaccine, to me there are at least 3 issues with mRNA shots:
1) Injectable vaccines of any sort for airborne pathogens don't make sense
2) We have no idea what _effective_ dose of pathogen one gets from injecting mRNA
3) Only trying to produce one protein from a virus (or one protein each from two distinct strains) seems to be designed to cause viral evolution
3a) Continuing to target an extinct strain seems to be self-contradictory
re: point 3, another side of the argument is that there really is some valuable immune system training from being infected by a different corona virus. i.e. SARS-CoV-1 survivors from 20+ years ago were shown to be capable of mounting an immune response to SARS-CoV-2. and newer evidence shows that people who'd been infected with a totally different corona virus related to the common cold also had some cross immunity. finally, even the Covid 19 mRNA pushers themselves keep telling us that the original version of the Covid 19 mRNA vaccine benefited people long after the original strain was gone and newer SARS-CoV-2 strains became dominant (of course, what they refuse to say is that natural immunity is really valuable and protective).
Cross immunity from SARS-CoV-1 and from other corona viruses might bolster my point, since in those cases the immune systems had been exposed to a set of more than two dozen proteins, not just a single one.
The message from the mRNA pushers is suspect since they used abysmal math, dubious experimental techniques during trials, and inexcusable followup techniques. See Norman Fenton's work for a deep-dive on the math.
Bottom line: even if there is some possible benefits for weeks 2-13 (or whatever) after an mRNA jab, long-term the vactines (as Brandon calls them) are INeffective in addition to being UNsafe.
ok. I can see that it bolsters point 3.
OTOH, on your point 3a it seems 50/50 because the human immune system can generalize to an extent. exposure to protein A may give some cross immunity to protein A'. but in support of 3a it does seem like it's better to target the currently live strain than to target an extinct strain.
so maybe it's "semi self-contradictory"? IDK. I recall Vinay Prasad questioning it when they kept on pushing the original version of the vaccine many months after the original and alpha strain were extinct in the wild. he noted that mRNA technology was supposed to let them swap out the viral protein mRNA easily. and yet they didn't do that until months later with the bivalent booster. so, once again, they misled everyone at the start.
You're right, I am way out of my depth to have a strong conviction on 3a. Of course it seems like the whole Vaccine Industrial Complex is way out of their depth too.
The problem is, according to my reading, that during such natural infections, each individual makes immune memory (via nk, tcell, epigenetic changes to secretory igA antibodies, and eventually Bcells) to very different protein fragments found in both structural (e.g. spike) and non-structural proteins (RNA- dependent RNA polymerase). This makes us all very different.
The only way to mimic this is via traditional live-attenuated vaccines which go through the same entry (e.g. mucosal).
They're not a whole lot safer than getting a natural infection at that point.
They're a very good reasons why this normal immune cascade (from innate to humoral, tcell confirmation of bcells etc..) needs to happen. Vaccines seem a poor approximation, especially for respiratory pathogens and mRNA transfections by their very design pose a terrible risk of autoimmunity issues.
It's the unique form of stupidity described by Bonhoeffer. It's crucial to understand that the so-called intelligent of society can also be very, very stupid. Reading between the lines, Bonhoeffer's essay describes what some today call "mass formation" - this is true - Mark Crispin Miller:
“I have called the period from 2020 to the present a propaganda masterpiece….This is the most frightening thing of all: This one has succeeded by making people do it willingly…What the Covid crisis did as propaganda is make millions of people desperate to get a “vaccination.” I mean it’s like getting people to elbow each other out of the way to get on board the cattle cars.”
This is 100% true. Look at any critically-thinking scientist's analysis of the shots. For example, Dr. Denis Rancourt in Canada. His team provides data-backed analysis that the SHOTS have murdered 13+ million people, which correlates with Ed Dowd's data on death and injury in the USA.
It is painfully obvious that "vaccines", ALL vaccines, do nothing but harm people - from day 1 until the present day. They are tools of population control; they always have been.
See "Dissolving Illusions", "Turtles All The Way Down" or any Judy Mikovits book - she found out what was up years ago and they cancelled her.
https://southsidemessenger.com/bonhoeffer-on-stupidity-entire-quote/
What's the root cause? People actually think that they are their own. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior - NOTHING else matters. Peace.
could it be that, because the US postwar labor and job market continues to sink to lower and lower depths, people are just frightened to death of losing their hard won employment, their careers? they'll say or do anything just to keep their careers on track. the economy is just that bad now. people don't have any alternatives. once they take your medical license, or fire you from your company for being a "denier" -- it goes on social media and the internet never forgets. you become a permanent pariah, an American untouchable. in short, the economy is really bad now. people just want to remain in the segment of society that still has a roof over its head and some food on the table.
No. That's the whole point of "Live Not By Lies". When you live the lie, you become a hollow shell of your true self. When you choose money over truth, everything of value goes down the drain. There is no real "healthcare" in the United States via corporate hospitals. Peace.
yeah, well, a lot of people are living by lies then, I guess.
Yes. I agree. Peace.
His response was all we needed to know. Demand an enormous amount of money so you have an excuse to say no. I pity him because deep down in his soul he knows what caused his daughter’s autism. RFK is for medical freedom and despite the fact I’m not on board with his global warming views, with 6 grandchildren I want my kids to have the choice. My - year old grandson started twitching after the HIB shot. My daughter twitches now from the rabies vaccine. So we are done with this stuff
Kennedy says he’s pro 2nd amendment but he doesn’t know what red flag laws are.
So there it is... the difference between an intellectual person and one anchored in conspiracy and superstition.
Despite your previous position or opinion on the historical debate on vaccines, with the added personal connection you are entertaining a discussion publicly that could challenge everything you have thought prior to now. Intellectual,practical,reality based decisions.
Yet on the other hand... Highly praised Mr. Science persona must resort to the court of superficial public whimsy to defend his position, refusing offhand to belittle his scientific expertise with so absurd a discussion.
Comical yes , funny no.
Disturbing? Very. It is a battle being waged of beliefs and religious adoration, and the majority of people have no idea how silly the assumed knowledge they think they have really is.
The "misinformation" meme is tiresome and puerile.
https://rumble.com/v2v0t5j-rfk-jr.-debates-dr.-hotez-on-joe-rogan-podcast.html
Haha... clever.
Now we are getting somewhere...no sacred cows...no golden calfs...go to where the data lead you. Real Natural philosophy.