An ethical professional publishing operation wouldn't pass off an unreplicated study as a replicated one to those who clearly don't know the difference.
3. Not a simple answer. Here's one way to approach it.
The first scientific hypothesis:
Gen. 3:4-5 The serpent said to the woman, “You certainly will not die! “For God knows that on the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil.”
That's quite a statement, and of course an experiment ensued. But note that the "knowing" referenced therein is "knowledge", and the word "science" means "knowledge". The pursuit of such "knowing" has a foreseeable outcome:
Prov. 14:12 There is a way which seems right to a person, But its end is the way of death.
I suggest that "science" represents the further pursuit of the knowledge of good and evil, and all that comes of it. This is how bad the problem is, and how it impacts my life.
Most people don't understand the philosophical basis behind scientific models. Without an "observable subset of behaviours," which takes the form of independently reproducible data, then the model is effectively a story. That's what a lot of these publications are: stories from "credible" (believable) authorities.
"If correctness requires a frame of reference, and there are innumerable perspectives and interpretations, then science is not “knowing the truth,” because an absolute truth is imperceivable. Instead, science is the practice of “searching for the truth” by constructing a model consistent with an observable subset of behaviours."
However, what does appear in the confusion is a number of leading scientists and thought leaders who are engaged in communicating key findings and ideas in open view so that they are on the same sheet of music. Like an insider clique.
John Lednicky, in January 2021 discusses viriols that possess an ability to defy computational fluid dynamics, massing on a point target rather than an area target to optimize a payload delivery. He doesn't explain it, and just notes it as matter of fact. He also tells the reader he has apparently determined infectious dose against E6 Vero cells, but doesn't identify an quantifiable metric. He may have been protecting a proprietary interest as a patent holder of a PCR test.
There are several instances of this in pandemic, but probably the earliest was Wei Ji, who tested every known animal in the wet market to determine codon usage bias, or species affinity. Wei Ji had to know there are no reptile coronaviruses, but he tested reptiles and found a snake affinity. Not even Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN questioned it.
Great article. Yes, I agree totally. There are some of the same drugs I take, I can tell, I get sick. For example soma, muscle relaxer. I can only take Sciegen manufacturer, but if I take another, my body rejects it. Like pyriduim, I can only take prescription, not AZO otc. I get more bladder infections. It’s not psychosomatic as I had so many horrible bladder infections, recently. I have intersistitial cystitis. There you go...the replication of drugs are horrible and some of us unfortunately need it for our pain, or a by product of a medical experiment...75 surgeries later. And I am allergic to opioids, steroids and anti depressants.
This is an excellent article, Mike, and your writing style is second to none! I, for one, had no idea this was even an issue. Your article has really opened my eyes, and I will never look at medications the same way I did before reading your article.
So there is still good science being done. The “failure to replicate“ observation has been replicated by several independent researchers. I think we’re getting somewhere.
I’ve posted this on FB as so many people there “follow the science”. I’m hoping it will add to the idea that science is not a set of beliefs, but a series of replicable actions.
Once again Mike you rock the house. No this is not the first time I have read information regarding peer review. Yes I was aware of how bad it is. This will only re-enforce my decision to check the science before trusting what's put out. Keep rocking the house Mike you are on the way to crushing their house of cards.
Natalie Morris of the Redacted news team has a Ph.d in study design. She said that many studies aren't studies at all. Someone writes a paper that gets published, then they write another paper and refer to their earlier paper as a study. It's just their opinion. No study was ever conducted. There was a lot of this going on with covid.
Dr. Bryan Ardis also exposed early on the fraudulent claims regarding the drug Remdesivir which was actually a MURDER PROTOCOL. There’s no other way to look at this drug in view of the linked scientific study he found on the CDC website which nobody else apparently read yet it was there in plain sight for all medical doctors to reference. He became famous for bringing the extraordinary harmfulness of this medication to the world’s attention.
We need to apply great discernment in ALL THINGS now & this includes ALL published research/peer reviewed studies & ALL scientific claims.
Sorry, I just wanted to bring to your attention that there were a few places in your article where you appeared to make “replication” and “reproducible” interchangeable in meaning. My initial impression when I started to read your article was that they were not interchangeable words. Also, does the term “reproduceability crisis” essentially mean non-replicative? Is my assumption correct? Can you please clarify? Thank you 🙏.
Excellent article, Mike. That's the issue. Virology: Never a Control Experiment and Never Reproducible
So is Virology a Science ?
Let me share this very short one : https://odysee.com/@Gamzuletova:9/NeverControlNeverReproducible:5?r=9kZvqwNyy1PFqa5SeK88dqM1huUrauMt
An ethical professional publishing operation wouldn't pass off an unreplicated study as a replicated one to those who clearly don't know the difference.
1. No
2. Yes
3. Not a simple answer. Here's one way to approach it.
The first scientific hypothesis:
Gen. 3:4-5 The serpent said to the woman, “You certainly will not die! “For God knows that on the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil.”
That's quite a statement, and of course an experiment ensued. But note that the "knowing" referenced therein is "knowledge", and the word "science" means "knowledge". The pursuit of such "knowing" has a foreseeable outcome:
Prov. 14:12 There is a way which seems right to a person, But its end is the way of death.
I suggest that "science" represents the further pursuit of the knowledge of good and evil, and all that comes of it. This is how bad the problem is, and how it impacts my life.
Most people don't understand the philosophical basis behind scientific models. Without an "observable subset of behaviours," which takes the form of independently reproducible data, then the model is effectively a story. That's what a lot of these publications are: stories from "credible" (believable) authorities.
"If correctness requires a frame of reference, and there are innumerable perspectives and interpretations, then science is not “knowing the truth,” because an absolute truth is imperceivable. Instead, science is the practice of “searching for the truth” by constructing a model consistent with an observable subset of behaviours."
https://theodoreatkinson.substack.com/p/philosophy-of-science-and-public-dialouge
Thank you so much Mike, great article.
At least coincidentally, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences had revisited this issue in 2015, just before a pandemic, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1421412111#:~:text=We%20define%20reproducibility%20as%20the%20ability%20to%20recompute,scientific%20question%20will%20produce%20a%20consistent%20result%20%281%29, and some scientists during the pandemic had noted how it didn't appear that there was an international consensus on how research would be reported, focusing on replicability of methods.
However, what does appear in the confusion is a number of leading scientists and thought leaders who are engaged in communicating key findings and ideas in open view so that they are on the same sheet of music. Like an insider clique.
John Lednicky, in January 2021 discusses viriols that possess an ability to defy computational fluid dynamics, massing on a point target rather than an area target to optimize a payload delivery. He doesn't explain it, and just notes it as matter of fact. He also tells the reader he has apparently determined infectious dose against E6 Vero cells, but doesn't identify an quantifiable metric. He may have been protecting a proprietary interest as a patent holder of a PCR test.
There are several instances of this in pandemic, but probably the earliest was Wei Ji, who tested every known animal in the wet market to determine codon usage bias, or species affinity. Wei Ji had to know there are no reptile coronaviruses, but he tested reptiles and found a snake affinity. Not even Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN questioned it.
I take alot of tablets but never though of that can tablets be given mainly to enrich doctors or pharma wether you really need them.
Great article. Yes, I agree totally. There are some of the same drugs I take, I can tell, I get sick. For example soma, muscle relaxer. I can only take Sciegen manufacturer, but if I take another, my body rejects it. Like pyriduim, I can only take prescription, not AZO otc. I get more bladder infections. It’s not psychosomatic as I had so many horrible bladder infections, recently. I have intersistitial cystitis. There you go...the replication of drugs are horrible and some of us unfortunately need it for our pain, or a by product of a medical experiment...75 surgeries later. And I am allergic to opioids, steroids and anti depressants.
This is an excellent article, Mike, and your writing style is second to none! I, for one, had no idea this was even an issue. Your article has really opened my eyes, and I will never look at medications the same way I did before reading your article.
Thank you for sharing this with us all!!
So there is still good science being done. The “failure to replicate“ observation has been replicated by several independent researchers. I think we’re getting somewhere.
I’ve posted this on FB as so many people there “follow the science”. I’m hoping it will add to the idea that science is not a set of beliefs, but a series of replicable actions.
Once again Mike you rock the house. No this is not the first time I have read information regarding peer review. Yes I was aware of how bad it is. This will only re-enforce my decision to check the science before trusting what's put out. Keep rocking the house Mike you are on the way to crushing their house of cards.
Virology is based on lies and requires lies.
Probably everything else in science as well. It's a wonder that humans discover anything.
Natalie Morris of the Redacted news team has a Ph.d in study design. She said that many studies aren't studies at all. Someone writes a paper that gets published, then they write another paper and refer to their earlier paper as a study. It's just their opinion. No study was ever conducted. There was a lot of this going on with covid.
An incredibly informative, timely, & much needed article. THANK YOU! Will definitely pass it on.
Your article gives support to Dr. Simon Goddek’s complaint about the scientific process especially in regards to peer reviewed articles/studies. In January 2021, Dr. Simon Goddek, did an excellent thread on Twit/X essentially exposing the fraudulent peer-reviewed process as it applied to Christian Drosten & the PCR TEST. I believe this is the original thread w/ videos - https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1613619120313962498.html. See this more recent Substack article concerning this same topic - https://www.drgoddek.com/p/christian-drosten-is-a-threat-to. See also - https://www.drgoddek.com/p/how-scientific-fraud-took-the-world.
Dr. Bryan Ardis also exposed early on the fraudulent claims regarding the drug Remdesivir which was actually a MURDER PROTOCOL. There’s no other way to look at this drug in view of the linked scientific study he found on the CDC website which nobody else apparently read yet it was there in plain sight for all medical doctors to reference. He became famous for bringing the extraordinary harmfulness of this medication to the world’s attention.
We need to apply great discernment in ALL THINGS now & this includes ALL published research/peer reviewed studies & ALL scientific claims.
Sorry, I just wanted to bring to your attention that there were a few places in your article where you appeared to make “replication” and “reproducible” interchangeable in meaning. My initial impression when I started to read your article was that they were not interchangeable words. Also, does the term “reproduceability crisis” essentially mean non-replicative? Is my assumption correct? Can you please clarify? Thank you 🙏.