"After three years of stifling conformity, I’m happy to see men of wealth and power like Ackman acknowledging the value of heterodox views offered by gifted individuals."
Yet far more people of little wealth and power saw through the scams and spoke out after only three weeks or months.
Ackman trades on market timing. He has judged that this is the moment to speak up because momentum and risk/reward are in his favor. Too bad it’s 3 years too late, when real courage was required.
Because as part of the moneyed elite...he was way after Edward Dowd on the impact of the jabs. They always stick with the crowd until it is safe...made so by others.
Thank you Dr. McCullough, and especially thank you Mike Yeadon.
There is no reason to be afraid of any respitory pandemic...they simply don't exist, and always become less lethal...and we have antibiotics. 1918 happened only because of the new typhoid shots and the lack of antibiotics...and this is from Faucis own mouth.
The ability to more swiftly consider competing ideas is also why free speech is so crucial, and should be promoted as a cultural value in every family and organization. I left the world of social media several years ago because the other piece to functioning debate, calm civility, seemed to have bypassed the “look at me” social media trends. Problems are rarely solved screaming names at another person. Not sure why anyone would think typed conversations would be any different.
Finally, I think intellectual curiosity is increasingly squashed in our society, and that is a huge red flag for a regressive path. For those of us who saw the insanity of Covid very early, at least personally speaking, it had nothing to do with wanting to be “right,” and everything to do with a curiosity to actually want to understand the situation - whatever was objectively right. I looked at dashboards, looked up what size particles masks could actually physically filter, used the models plotted against observed actual outcomes to teach my then 6 and 8 year olds about graphs (they inadvertently learned a great deal about propaganda too). To be curious is a virtue in short supply and I hope we all start encouraging it more consciously.
When I was a biomedical researcher, I saw a variety of errors - some quite fundamental - in the ways in which investigations in my field were being carried out. Unfortunately, because I didn't have the charateristics to fit in with the seniority/power structure, my observations/concerns about how theories were being developed (poor data leading to questionable theories, which then generate more poor data, which then generate less than desirable results when applied to the real world), went largely ignored. Never mind that hypotheses were being proposed on the collective back of questionable studies published papers that competent peer reviewers should have sent back for basic errors, or that the most fundamental question of all, "what are the characteristics of the population as a whole, from which we select random 'normal' control and 'abnormal' study subject groups?", was never asked. I once voluntarily conducted a study of my own to try to get a handle on that very question, and collected some surprising preliminary data, but the PTB weren't even slightly interested. If the questions asked and information collected don't come from the right people in the power structure, or they don't support the prevailing narrative, they just aren't considered important.
There are two basic, competing drives in the research world: the desire to create consensus, and the desire to stand out. To a greater or lesser degree, one or the other of these two basic psychological drives are inextricably mixed, in the mind of a scientist, into his or her practice of science. In most individuals, the ideal combination is that of standing out by spectacularly advancing the concensus. That combines the best prizes of acquiring the admiration and accolades of being a leader, while retaining the safety of being firmly ensconcd within the primate troupe. There is also a continuum of personal psychological impulses which I would characterize as investment into either pure self-interest at one end, or pure upholding of science at the other. Individual researchers all fall at different points on this continuum. I see one's place on the scale as emerging from a mixture of personal values, the level of liberal arts education a researcher has, and the degree of insight and honest transparency one has with one's own soul (or phrased alternatively, as the degree of development of one's own conscience). Those who are well educated in the liberal arts, who have the insight required to APPLY that education to their everyday decisions, and who are open to themselves, generally make fantastic scientists whose discoveries and insights are often profound and can be trusted and followed. On the other hand, the members of the troupe who combine the strongest drives towards self-investment and self-deception are, in my observation, sometimes brilliant researchers but more often glorified hacks, whose main talents run towards making discoveries that merely enhance the ability of the existing PTB further exploit the system for their own gain. Unfortunately, the least pro-social scientists are also the ones most likely to rise through the system to positions of power. Their transit is made possible largely because they're passively aided and abeted by the bulk of less aggressive, mediocre researchers who are content to live the fairly unexamined life and simply accept their superiors' work with little critical analysis.
As they rise in power, the more self-aggrandizing researchers set more and more of the agenda for those below them, who themsevlves mainly stay within the cognitive confines laid down by their bosses. Naturally, those barriers are designed and culturally disseminated to support their narrative and manufacture consensus. Yes, rival troupes of scientists, like rival troupes of monkeys, may view each other as threats and attack one another in the endless competition for grant funding (food) or political and social support, but rare is the individual researcher willing to be the lone primate and wander off to simply and honestly follow wherever the data leads. Especially in the era of big, expensive science. Out of all of my professors and bosses, I can't really name one whom I feel would have given their professional lives to the honest practice of science. I developed the distinct impression over the years that most would literally rather die than change their minds when confronted with evidence challenging a theory that they had slavishly devoted decades of their lives to building and defending. That's not science, that's religion.
One of the greatest lessons I learned as a practicing scientist is that true scientists are actually far and few between. Although most researchers - at least the ones I worked with - were, indeed, intelligent and dedicated to their craft, most are too perpetually distracted by money, politics or egotistical bondage to their own ideas to be true to their impartial mission. The situation intensifies, of course, as a scientist climbs the career ladder, although it captures even their lowliest bench techs who are immediately indoctrinated into the prevailing theories and have little choice, opportunity, desire or even requisite education to bother asking questions. If they rise throught the ranks, they simply become carriers of whatever dogma they started off under. Part of the reason I never got very far, despite the quality of my work and achievements, is because I kept practicing science instead of simply generating consensus data that my bosses could use for career advancement. I didn't passively swallow dogma. One doesn't get points for that.
It's so sad to see how the inherently noble endeavor of science becomes so degraded when practiced by the average person. I believe most scietists are made, not born, and come from a large cross-section of humanity who fall just slightly to the right of the middle of the bell curve. (I think the curve itself for the mass of humanity could be shifted a bit to the right with the proper approach to education. There;s a LOT of untapped human potential all over out there.) Most scientists certainly aren't above the mean in terms of empathy or insight, either, So what happens when the average human mind gets starts thinking sceintifically? Early science brings spectacular benefits to civilizations. Later science becomes too complex to understand and creates second- and third-order effects too numerous and powerful to predict or control. Civilizations subsequently spin out of control, as ours is doing now. Scientists turn from being bringers of light, to collectively becoing Death, the Destroyer. Perhaps the relentless logic of physics will have that no other way, but it is our emotions and our belief in the theory of 'progress' that will not allow us to stop marching towards what we have deemed to be the inevitable.
Bottom line, I would give most of modern medicine a wide berth at this point. Not to throw out any babies with any bath water, but the point of diminishing returns has already been crossed and most biomedical research now is comfortably ensconced within the medical/industrial.financial model of "anything for a buck". And dont count on the bulk of mediocre scientists to challenge that dictum. They can't - or won't - even see it happening. But you can. and the time to start thinking carefully about just how far you'll 'folow the sscience, is now. Caveat emptor, IMO.
This was quite an insightful response. Not surprised by much of what you wrote. If you haven't started writing for your own substack, this could be your first article.
Have tried to send a reply to you three times but it won’t go through. I have no idea why.
Short answer is no. Due to circumstances in my life at the time, I applied for, and was accepted into, a terminal Masters’ program. Worked like hell for four long years to earn that degree under a rather emotionally absent prof who was a far better teacher and mentor in her own mind than in reality. Not an unusual scenario in that department. Decided I didn’t want to become her clone and vivisect tortured rats for 30 years in endless variations of the same experiment. So once I left and went to work I decided I’d pretty much had it with grad school.
It is incredible to me that we forget the lessons of Semmelweiss, Galileo, Corpernicus, John Snow, etc. etc. etc....and forget human nature as well, especially in science.
We still have a world view based on gravity and other nonsense, when the universe is electric plasma.
We still deny that electricity can harm us...including wires and wireless and 5G.
Vaccines are crap and do not work.
We still beleive in continental drift .
In evolution.
So many things need to come crashing down and replaced by new theories. I am just sad I won't live long enough to see our old world view replaced.
But it will be.
Us Outliers are useful one in every couple hundred years...we clued into the MNRA fraud way early, before the vaccines were released.
Oh Duchess, with so many for some reason unable to think ...who knows how humanity is going to end up? I won't be here to see it either, not in my present form anyway lol Blessings to you 😊
Yes, This is also the main idea in Thomas Kuhn's landmark book from 1962, demonstrating that science doesn't make orderly "progress" because its paradigms stifle mainstream scientists; it's only outliers and young, less indoctrinated researchers who make important discoveries. Nowadays, though, the young are more indoctrinated than ever, so we've lost most of them; need the adventurous, creative outliers more than ever!
We have not lost our youth.we need to support and nurture them on their path to finding the right and true way. We need to have faith that our parenting and efforts have and will have an endearing effect.
Also highly recommended is "The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party" (Available fo #6 from Thrift Books)
Debate is the 'sunshine' that would destroy the entire woke/Covid/medical-military-pharma-censorship complex. They flee debates and cannot even attempt to engage - as we see in the fully mind-controlled people around us. free speech is the ENEMY of the left/Democrats that's why they keep 'updating' definitions of everything from climate, to gender, to democracy.
“When you’re part of the establishment, it’s hard to challenge the conventional wisdom”.
And when you’re a creature of the criminal enterprise, you have plenty of time to “run” a portfolio of multibillion dollar businesses, father 10 or more children and stay up all night “tweeting”.
Thank you, Norica! I deeply appreciate your kind words. Never thought of writing for substack, didn’t figure anybody would really care much about anything I have to say, but with your encouragement, maybe I’ll try. Again, much gratitude!
OK, I just tried! Published my first article. Decided to start fresh rather than posting a reply that might not stand on its own. If you have the time and inclincation, I'd be very grateful if you could give it a read and let me know what you think. Thank you!
Well I' not sure about brilliant, but if I can contribute something of value, I;m willing to try. I just published y first Substack article. I'd be grateful if you had the time and inclination to give it a read and leave me your comments. Thank you!
"After three years of stifling conformity, I’m happy to see men of wealth and power like Ackman acknowledging the value of heterodox views offered by gifted individuals."
Yet far more people of little wealth and power saw through the scams and spoke out after only three weeks or months.
Ackman trades on market timing. He has judged that this is the moment to speak up because momentum and risk/reward are in his favor. Too bad it’s 3 years too late, when real courage was required.
Because as part of the moneyed elite...he was way after Edward Dowd on the impact of the jabs. They always stick with the crowd until it is safe...made so by others.
Thank you Dr. McCullough, and especially thank you Mike Yeadon.
There is no reason to be afraid of any respitory pandemic...they simply don't exist, and always become less lethal...and we have antibiotics. 1918 happened only because of the new typhoid shots and the lack of antibiotics...and this is from Faucis own mouth.
AMEN AMEN AMEN. And handfuls of physicians who lost everything never gave up. They are now waking up the world.
The ability to more swiftly consider competing ideas is also why free speech is so crucial, and should be promoted as a cultural value in every family and organization. I left the world of social media several years ago because the other piece to functioning debate, calm civility, seemed to have bypassed the “look at me” social media trends. Problems are rarely solved screaming names at another person. Not sure why anyone would think typed conversations would be any different.
Finally, I think intellectual curiosity is increasingly squashed in our society, and that is a huge red flag for a regressive path. For those of us who saw the insanity of Covid very early, at least personally speaking, it had nothing to do with wanting to be “right,” and everything to do with a curiosity to actually want to understand the situation - whatever was objectively right. I looked at dashboards, looked up what size particles masks could actually physically filter, used the models plotted against observed actual outcomes to teach my then 6 and 8 year olds about graphs (they inadvertently learned a great deal about propaganda too). To be curious is a virtue in short supply and I hope we all start encouraging it more consciously.
Nice!
I'm retired, and non-vaxxed.
I decided early 2020 to research all I could, regarding the vaccines... they're not vaccines.
Just today, we had a backyard luncheon with friends of 60 years.
One stated that she had submitted to her 5th jab...
And questioned me why I was shaking my head...
I have stopped trying, unless someone genuinely wants to know what I have discovered in my 3 years of research.
Sorry, you can't fix stupid...
and I won't try anymore...
BEAUTIFULLY stated!
I am a NCdad standing with you!
They kept STUMF because the elites made shit tons of money...and destoryed the middle class.
Haven't seen you for a while NCMom. Good to see you scribing again. Well stated.
When I was a biomedical researcher, I saw a variety of errors - some quite fundamental - in the ways in which investigations in my field were being carried out. Unfortunately, because I didn't have the charateristics to fit in with the seniority/power structure, my observations/concerns about how theories were being developed (poor data leading to questionable theories, which then generate more poor data, which then generate less than desirable results when applied to the real world), went largely ignored. Never mind that hypotheses were being proposed on the collective back of questionable studies published papers that competent peer reviewers should have sent back for basic errors, or that the most fundamental question of all, "what are the characteristics of the population as a whole, from which we select random 'normal' control and 'abnormal' study subject groups?", was never asked. I once voluntarily conducted a study of my own to try to get a handle on that very question, and collected some surprising preliminary data, but the PTB weren't even slightly interested. If the questions asked and information collected don't come from the right people in the power structure, or they don't support the prevailing narrative, they just aren't considered important.
There are two basic, competing drives in the research world: the desire to create consensus, and the desire to stand out. To a greater or lesser degree, one or the other of these two basic psychological drives are inextricably mixed, in the mind of a scientist, into his or her practice of science. In most individuals, the ideal combination is that of standing out by spectacularly advancing the concensus. That combines the best prizes of acquiring the admiration and accolades of being a leader, while retaining the safety of being firmly ensconcd within the primate troupe. There is also a continuum of personal psychological impulses which I would characterize as investment into either pure self-interest at one end, or pure upholding of science at the other. Individual researchers all fall at different points on this continuum. I see one's place on the scale as emerging from a mixture of personal values, the level of liberal arts education a researcher has, and the degree of insight and honest transparency one has with one's own soul (or phrased alternatively, as the degree of development of one's own conscience). Those who are well educated in the liberal arts, who have the insight required to APPLY that education to their everyday decisions, and who are open to themselves, generally make fantastic scientists whose discoveries and insights are often profound and can be trusted and followed. On the other hand, the members of the troupe who combine the strongest drives towards self-investment and self-deception are, in my observation, sometimes brilliant researchers but more often glorified hacks, whose main talents run towards making discoveries that merely enhance the ability of the existing PTB further exploit the system for their own gain. Unfortunately, the least pro-social scientists are also the ones most likely to rise through the system to positions of power. Their transit is made possible largely because they're passively aided and abeted by the bulk of less aggressive, mediocre researchers who are content to live the fairly unexamined life and simply accept their superiors' work with little critical analysis.
As they rise in power, the more self-aggrandizing researchers set more and more of the agenda for those below them, who themsevlves mainly stay within the cognitive confines laid down by their bosses. Naturally, those barriers are designed and culturally disseminated to support their narrative and manufacture consensus. Yes, rival troupes of scientists, like rival troupes of monkeys, may view each other as threats and attack one another in the endless competition for grant funding (food) or political and social support, but rare is the individual researcher willing to be the lone primate and wander off to simply and honestly follow wherever the data leads. Especially in the era of big, expensive science. Out of all of my professors and bosses, I can't really name one whom I feel would have given their professional lives to the honest practice of science. I developed the distinct impression over the years that most would literally rather die than change their minds when confronted with evidence challenging a theory that they had slavishly devoted decades of their lives to building and defending. That's not science, that's religion.
One of the greatest lessons I learned as a practicing scientist is that true scientists are actually far and few between. Although most researchers - at least the ones I worked with - were, indeed, intelligent and dedicated to their craft, most are too perpetually distracted by money, politics or egotistical bondage to their own ideas to be true to their impartial mission. The situation intensifies, of course, as a scientist climbs the career ladder, although it captures even their lowliest bench techs who are immediately indoctrinated into the prevailing theories and have little choice, opportunity, desire or even requisite education to bother asking questions. If they rise throught the ranks, they simply become carriers of whatever dogma they started off under. Part of the reason I never got very far, despite the quality of my work and achievements, is because I kept practicing science instead of simply generating consensus data that my bosses could use for career advancement. I didn't passively swallow dogma. One doesn't get points for that.
It's so sad to see how the inherently noble endeavor of science becomes so degraded when practiced by the average person. I believe most scietists are made, not born, and come from a large cross-section of humanity who fall just slightly to the right of the middle of the bell curve. (I think the curve itself for the mass of humanity could be shifted a bit to the right with the proper approach to education. There;s a LOT of untapped human potential all over out there.) Most scientists certainly aren't above the mean in terms of empathy or insight, either, So what happens when the average human mind gets starts thinking sceintifically? Early science brings spectacular benefits to civilizations. Later science becomes too complex to understand and creates second- and third-order effects too numerous and powerful to predict or control. Civilizations subsequently spin out of control, as ours is doing now. Scientists turn from being bringers of light, to collectively becoing Death, the Destroyer. Perhaps the relentless logic of physics will have that no other way, but it is our emotions and our belief in the theory of 'progress' that will not allow us to stop marching towards what we have deemed to be the inevitable.
Bottom line, I would give most of modern medicine a wide berth at this point. Not to throw out any babies with any bath water, but the point of diminishing returns has already been crossed and most biomedical research now is comfortably ensconced within the medical/industrial.financial model of "anything for a buck". And dont count on the bulk of mediocre scientists to challenge that dictum. They can't - or won't - even see it happening. But you can. and the time to start thinking carefully about just how far you'll 'folow the sscience, is now. Caveat emptor, IMO.
This was quite an insightful response. Not surprised by much of what you wrote. If you haven't started writing for your own substack, this could be your first article.
Long comment, but well done.
Curious, were you a PHD candidate?
Hi, Indrek
Have tried to send a reply to you three times but it won’t go through. I have no idea why.
Short answer is no. Due to circumstances in my life at the time, I applied for, and was accepted into, a terminal Masters’ program. Worked like hell for four long years to earn that degree under a rather emotionally absent prof who was a far better teacher and mentor in her own mind than in reality. Not an unusual scenario in that department. Decided I didn’t want to become her clone and vivisect tortured rats for 30 years in endless variations of the same experiment. So once I left and went to work I decided I’d pretty much had it with grad school.
It is incredible to me that we forget the lessons of Semmelweiss, Galileo, Corpernicus, John Snow, etc. etc. etc....and forget human nature as well, especially in science.
We still have a world view based on gravity and other nonsense, when the universe is electric plasma.
We still deny that electricity can harm us...including wires and wireless and 5G.
Vaccines are crap and do not work.
We still beleive in continental drift .
In evolution.
So many things need to come crashing down and replaced by new theories. I am just sad I won't live long enough to see our old world view replaced.
But it will be.
Us Outliers are useful one in every couple hundred years...we clued into the MNRA fraud way early, before the vaccines were released.
But it sure is lonely.
Oh Duchess, with so many for some reason unable to think ...who knows how humanity is going to end up? I won't be here to see it either, not in my present form anyway lol Blessings to you 😊
Yes, This is also the main idea in Thomas Kuhn's landmark book from 1962, demonstrating that science doesn't make orderly "progress" because its paradigms stifle mainstream scientists; it's only outliers and young, less indoctrinated researchers who make important discoveries. Nowadays, though, the young are more indoctrinated than ever, so we've lost most of them; need the adventurous, creative outliers more than ever!
We have not lost our youth.we need to support and nurture them on their path to finding the right and true way. We need to have faith that our parenting and efforts have and will have an endearing effect.
Also highly recommended is "The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party" (Available fo #6 from Thrift Books)
Oops. Make that $6!
Debate is the 'sunshine' that would destroy the entire woke/Covid/medical-military-pharma-censorship complex. They flee debates and cannot even attempt to engage - as we see in the fully mind-controlled people around us. free speech is the ENEMY of the left/Democrats that's why they keep 'updating' definitions of everything from climate, to gender, to democracy.
“When you’re part of the establishment, it’s hard to challenge the conventional wisdom”.
And when you’re a creature of the criminal enterprise, you have plenty of time to “run” a portfolio of multibillion dollar businesses, father 10 or more children and stay up all night “tweeting”.
!!!
Well said.
Dr McCullough is mentioned in this timely article!! Bravo 👏🏻 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/pdf/SNI-13-167.pdf
Law and Gospel
“Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”
— Romans 3:31🙏 UNITE WITH GOD AND LIKE MINDED PRAY & PREP
A small step for mankind…. He’s still betting against America imo.
Anyone would...given that all our factories are overseas...its not genius, its just realizing that the Empire is over.
I am hoping the small Constitution Republic can survive..maybe with horses and stuff. Because we are on our way back to the stone age.
Thank you, Norica! I deeply appreciate your kind words. Never thought of writing for substack, didn’t figure anybody would really care much about anything I have to say, but with your encouragement, maybe I’ll try. Again, much gratitude!
OK, I just tried! Published my first article. Decided to start fresh rather than posting a reply that might not stand on its own. If you have the time and inclincation, I'd be very grateful if you could give it a read and let me know what you think. Thank you!
I'm not easily impressed. Your writing is brilliant.
Well I' not sure about brilliant, but if I can contribute something of value, I;m willing to try. I just published y first Substack article. I'd be grateful if you had the time and inclination to give it a read and leave me your comments. Thank you!
Curiosity is a divine gift suppressed for centuries by Church and Bible.
Many have awakened and dare to seek Truth in all its awesome glory and strangeness after being indoctrinated to believe and not question.
I wonder why RFK Jr would be considered an 'outlier' and not an expert?
I'm sure RFK's mind is no less capable than Hotez's of reading about a subject.
How does he get to post such a long opinion piece on Twittshit while the rest of us are restricted to 200 characters?
Fair play to Bill Ackman. Hopefully he's not invited to Davos!!!