We've heard a lot in the last two years about 'science', 'trust the science', blah, blah, blah. I will go ahead and tell you right now, about ninety-nine point nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine percent of people have no idea what 'science' is. And that includes him (points to picture of Anthony Fauci) and includes most people who actually work as scientists. Because I've talked to a lot of them over the last two years. And that's a big deal. We're going to go through and talk about science real quick before I get onto the main topic, because this is important.
I'm sure you've seen Neil Tyson deSchmearstache, I'm sorry, Neil deGrasse Tyson, say, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."He doesn't know what science is."In Evidence We Trust"– yeah, it sounds great. What is "science"? (points to picture) "The Best Way to Parallel Park on a Crowded Street, According to Science" – does that have anything to do with "science"? How about this? "Scientists Discover A Self-Destruct Button For The Entire Universe" Really? Scientists discovered that? That's amazing. How about Laundry Science? "Get Ready, Get Set, Dry" Is that science? It's a Science project. Apparently, it's science they're teaching kids. How about that? That's our new cosmology. That's what they tell you right now, that you're flying through an endless nothing, with everything rotating like that. Is that 'science'? (next picture: a 'virus') How about that? Hmm, yeah, is that science? So, that's a good question. None of those were 'science.'
Science is a method. And science as a method only deals with cause and effect relationships in the natural world. It's a big deal. The definition of Natural Science: "A Science, such as biology, chemistry or physics, that deals with the objects, phenomena, or laws of nature and the physical world." Eh, that's close. Natural Science: "A major branch of science that tries to explain, and predict, nature's phenomena based on empirical evidence. Getting better!
In natural science, hypothesis must be verified scientifically to be regarded as scientific theory." Big deal here, okay? The reason I'm bringing this up is because everybody hears the word, "Science" thrown around, if you don't know what the term means, you're going to just accept what everybody says is "science". Because people use the word to lend credence to what they're claiming. Because, deep down, people equate 'science' with being 'truth'.
Colloquially, 'science' just means, 'knowledge'. Well, I can have knowledge that I'm standing up here right now talking to you that doesn't mean it's scientific. We're talking about Natural Science – especially when it comes to the shenanigans over the last two years. So that's what we're dealing with. Definitions matter, just like we talked about in the first one. The reason you can know what science is, is because you can know what it's not. There's the definition of Pseudoscience."A Collection of Beliefs or Practices Mistakenly Regarded as Being Based on The Scientific Method." Oh! There we go. Now we have a qualifier. So, we can know if something is actually scientific or not – if it's gone through the Scientific Method. Well, that's a big deal. I've been harping on this for a year and a half, online, and all over the internet and Twitter, and really going after some of these guys who start talking about 'science' and I'll start bringing up "Scientific Method" and asking for specifics, and they don't have a clue, most of them, what the "Scientific Method" is. That's a real scary thing that I've discovered.
Let's talk about the "Scientific Method" because this makes it easy."The Scientific Method is an approach to seeking knowledge that involves forming and testing a hypothesis."
We all learned this in like third or fifth grade and then it's forgotten.
"The Scientific Method provides a logical, systematic way to answer questions and removes subjectivity by requiring each answer to be authenticated with objective evidence that can be reproduced."
"The goal of the Scientific Method is to validate or invalidate the presumed cause of an effect."
That's a big deal. You have to have an effect, which is a phenomenon in the natural world, and then you try to figure out what's causing it. Science does not deal with "what is" questions. Science does not deal with descriptions. Science does not deal with the shape of objects. Science does not deal with how good a medicine works or not. Those are statistical studies. Those are case controls, and randomized control trials. Those are not trying to find out the cause of a natural phenomenon. That's what Natural Science is. That's a big deal, because you can start holding people's feet to the fire when they start throwing around the word, 'science.'
"An experiment following the scientific method will feature an independent variable and a dependent variable."
This is massive. Any time somebody claims that have scientific experiment, you first ask them: "What's your dependent variable?" The dependent variable is the phenomenon under study. It's the thing you saw in nature happening that you're trying to figure out what's causing it. The independent variable is your presumed cause. That's the thing the researcher has to manipulate and vary to see if it causes what it claims to cause, or you believe it to cause.
So that's pretty simple. It's actually very logical. To put it in layman's terms, "If X causes Y; X has to be real; and you have to show that it causes Y." We call get that. Kids would get that. You can take that and apply it to all these claims being made.
Here are the steps, once again:
- Observe a phenomenon.
- Alter hypothesis
- Independent variable (the presumed cause)
- Dependent variable (the observed effect)
- Control variables
- Null hypothesis
- Test / experiment
- Analyze the observations / data
- Validate / invalidate the hypothesis
Observe a phenomenon. That's just step one. I've talked to people who try and tell me that astronomy is science. And I'm like, "uh, what kind of experiments are you doing?" And they're like, "well, you know, we look through a telescope and we see lights." And I'm like, "yeah, you're observing stuff. What's next? What are you manipulating to find the cause?"
"Well, we don't have to do that."
"Yes, you do. For it to be 'science' you do. Otherwise you're just observing stuff and making up stories."
Which is fine. We all do that. Right? We all know people, we've all done this…we do it all the time…even with ourselves, when we're trying to figure something out. And we don't know the cause, so we'll start making up stories about what may have caused it. The local village drunk does it, right? Tells you stories all the time, 'let me tell you about why things are the way they are.' That's what they do too. Well, it's no difference than these 'scientismos' that make up stories about things they're seeing.
So, your alternate hypothesis, that's the key. That's the thing you think is causing the phenomenon. Independent, dependent variable, you have to have controls. The Null Hypothesis is, "X doesn't cause Y"- so that's the beauty of the Scientific Method. You have two outcomes, "X causes Y" or "X doesn't cause Y." That's it. It's qualitative. It's not dealing with statistics or any of that stuff. Next you do your test or experiment, and then you validate or invalidate your hypothesis. Anything that needs to be repeated.
I was going to play this clip from Michio Kaku, he is a quote-unquote "theoretical physicist" which is like being a married bachelor, because there is no such thing as theoretical physics. That's just more story-telling. And he says it in this interview.
"Nobody that I know of in my field [UNDERSTANDS]…. uses the so-called Scientific Method. In our field, it's by the seat of your pants, it's leaps of logic, it's GUESSWORK." – Michio Kaku, PhD
He's not lying, okay? He's saying it with a straight, funny face, smiling like "Duper's Delight"- that's called, "Duper's Delight." When they're smiling at you, 'we're pulling one over on you.' That' what they're doing. You got all these guys on History Channel and they're on all these programs and everybody just goes, "Oooh! That's so cool! That's science!"
It's NOT science. Okay? What isn't 'scientific'? I could make a list so long…! Astronomy. Astrophysics. Theoretical Physics. Epidemiology. Cosmology/Creation "Science". Evolutionary Biology. Paleontology. Anthropology. Psychology and Social "Sciences". Mathematics is not science. Technology is not science. Technology can use things from science, but technology itself is not scientific. When you're dealing with man-made things, you know what caused your effect. You did. You caused it. That's synthetic things and not natural science. That's a big deal. But the list could go on, and people get really "butt-hurt" about this a lot.
If you go tell an archaeologist they're not doing science, they're going to get mad at you. All you have to ask is, "What is your observed, natural phenomenon?" (There's not one.) You're just looking at stuff. Rocks aren't phenomenon. Bones aren't phenomenon. Phenomenon is something happening. And then you have to be able to experiment to see what caused it. They can't do that. None of this (points to list) can do that. The best you can do with a lot of these is observe. And that's fine, as long as you're not calling it 'scientific.' Once you call it 'scientific' but it hasn't gone through the Method, by definition, that is 'Pseudoscience.'
So that's the funny thing, you see all these people online, calling some of us who question things, they'll say, "Oh, you're just a believer of pseudoscience." They don't even know what that means. Because by definition, they're engaging in pseudoscience. They call all this 'science.' That's the funniest part.
This is not science. I had a guy, he's doing a Master's degree right now in biology. And we started talking about Scientific Method, and this is what he brought up. He said, "This is it; This is the pyramid of evidence." And I'm like, "Yeah, I remember that from medical school. (from top down) Systematic Reviews. Randomized Control Trials. Cohort Studies. Case-Control Studies, blah,blah,blah. Nothing in there is scientific. This is all observation and statistics. Not science. This is what most physicians think is science. This is what most academics think is science. It's not. It's a big deal. I'm not saying these aren't useful, by the way; that's not my point. These are very useful, because a lot of times, if the best you can do is to do some statistics, then you just do a lot of trial and error. And that's okay.
This is a quote from Marcia Angell (Former Editor-In-Chief, New England Journal of Medicine):
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine."
The reason I put this in here, because I see a lot of friends who start making fun of science, and they'll throw out these quotes about all the Journal articles having no science in them. But, if you know what science is, that shouldn't be surprising. Because doing medical research is not really doing science. This is all still true. Most of the things being done, I think it was John Ioannidis, big guy out of Stanford, came out with a paper saying, '95% of the studies are done can't be replicated in medicine.' Again, but that's not science. We're talking about drug studies, interventional studies, which are well and good. (next slide)
These are things I want people to know, because you can spot these a mile away. And I knew these going into med school and it helped me get through so much. But basically, when you equate science with pseudoscience, that's a fallacy. Many Christians don't know some of this stuff. A lot of people try and bring up issues with induction. Induction is trying to derive a general rule from specific events. And that is a problem in science and in the world of statistics.
The issue with the Scientific Method, it's sort of what's called a 'closed induction.' Because you're doing that experiment, the results apply there, so it's a deductive thing, "X caused Y". Can you extrapolate that out to the rest of the world? There are some philosophical issues with that. So that's why a lot of people I'll hear, "Well, science doesn't prove anything anyway." And I'm like, "Then stop using the word." Because they'll say, "Well the science tells us blah, blah blah." And I'll say, "Show me the scientific method." And they'll say, "Well science doesn't prove things." Then why are you talking about it? Why are you making positive claims if science doesn't prove anything? They're kind of living in both worlds there. But in my opinion, at least the scientific method tries. At least you're trying to validate something. Otherwise, you're just telling stories, which is what happens.
FALLACIES OF PSEUDOSCIENCE
This is massive. Two that I see the most common, "Begging the Question" and "Affirming the Consequent" – if you learn nothing else, learn "Affirming the Consequent", it's my favorite fallacy. And I'll give some examples of it: "If P, then Q. Q, therefore P."And I love Jim-Bob's comic here, because Einstein was good at this, "Observe the Effect. Invent the Cause. It's Science." And that's what people do. You observe something, and you declare what caused it. You don't do an experiment, you just declare it.
"All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: Now that is true, there for this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I was to say, "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; Now this bread does nourish me; therefore, it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."- Bertrand Russell
This was Bertrand Russell. He was talking about affirming the logical fallacy, and the reason I included this, is that it was included in one of Jordan Clark's papers, and again, this helped me in medical school, to see the issues, but I'm not going to read it, because this is my example.
EXAMPLE: GNOMES TRAMPLING MY GRASS!!
So, if I claim Gnomes are trampling my grass every night, and somebody asks for proof, and I gave you a picture of trampled grass as proof, you would think I was insane. That is exactly what happens every single day in academia. A claim is made, and you ask, "What's your proof of that?" And they show you the effect, but they can't show you the cause. And, Gnomes, do they exist, first of all? Obviously, this isn't a natural phenomenon, but let's just make it like that. If I said this, a third-grader would go, "Wait a minute… Show me Gnomes are real, first of all. And then show me they're trampling your grass." And I'd have to go, "No, just look at the grass picture, man. You can't deny that. That's Gnome trampling right there." That's a fun one; I use that one a lot.
How about this one: Santa is real. How do you know? Well there are presents under the tree and cookies were eaten. That's it, right? That's Affirming the Consequent."If P then Q. Q therefore P." If Santa's real, I'll get presents. I got presents, therefore Santa was real. You gotta start spotting this.
How about having an illness. Hmm, that's going to get into some touchy subjects there."I know viruses are real." How do you know? "Well, cuz I had the sniffles." But wait, show me the cause."Well, I had the sniffles; I was sick, and a few more people were sick at the same time."Wait, wait, that's fallacious; You have to show me the thing you're claiming is real.
How about these: And this goes to bacteria stuff, they'll say, "I had pneumonia, and it was caused by that bug in that petri dish right there." And how do you know that? And they say, "Well look, I had pneumonia." But how did you prove that those bugs caused that, because those bugs live in everybody every day. And they don't like to talk about that.
I threw this one in there too, because this applies to eschatology, right? You have your presuppositions, and they go, "Man! I heard about another war coming, it must be the End Times!" Same thing. You gotta start being able to pick this stuff apart. The Affirming the Consequent Logical Fallacy is ubiquitous. It's everywhere. And we all tend to do it for things that we have bias about. We can spot it when it's like, silly, like the Gnomes. But when it comes to some of these high-tech claims, we don't really question it.
Another good example is if I said, "If I ate a pizza I'll be full. I'm full, therefore I must have eaten a pizza." I could have eaten a burger. Again, those are just easy examples, but you can start spotting these everywhere, all the time. It's fun. Anyway, I'm a broken record, obviously.
Definitions and Methods matter. Just like proper exegesis versus your traditions and your creeds, if somebody is claiming something is 'scientific' you have to number one, know what that term means, so you can ask people. You don't have to be an expert in any of this stuff. You don't have to; The burden of proof is on them, making the positive claim. So, if they claim something 'scientific' you say, "What's your phenomenon?" And then maybe they have one. Then, "What was the experiment? What's your independent variable?" It will blow your mind how many people have no idea what that means, and I'm talking about people who are claiming to be scientists. It is unbelievable. And most of the time I get claims like, "Well, we just can't do that… It's just too hard."I'm like, then why are you making up stories? Just say you don't know; Be honest. I get pretty worked up about this stuff. But it's big deal, because it applies to a lot of things that we're taught that are very dogmatic and a lot of claims made from growing up in public education and all the way through college it just gets worse and worse. All the stuff that's rammed down our throats that we just take for granted, as, "Somebody figured it out." You've got go back and start digging in and realize that that's not quite true.
ON TO THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
Alright, I'm going to make this brief and try not to numb your minds. So, the elephant in the room, right. COVID…yeah, I think everybody's sick of it. I don't even think I can say the word without somebody coming after me.
"New Virus Discovered by Chinese Scientists Investigating Pneumonia Outbreak"
Blah, blah, blah, and that's the current elephant in the room right there, that we're constantly bombarded by these tiny, invisible things that want to kill us. And only if we cover our faces and spray everything down with chemicals will be ever be safe. Oh, and stay away from people and all that stuff. So, let me go back and talk about why I got into this. I guess it was 2020, February maybe? We don't have TV, so, I mean we have a TV but we don't have cable or anything, so we don't watch the news. And my mom started talking about some virus, and hydroxy chloroquine and we were like, "What are you talking about right now?" And she's like, "Yeah, the Chinese virus, it's coming!" And I'm like, "What are you smoking?" And she's like, "Yeah, we're going to bring you some hydroxy chloroquine" And they come over to the house, she won't even come in to the house. They're at the edge of the garage and I have to go out there to meet them, and I'm like, "Who are you people?" So, Leah and I are going, "This is weird." And we're kind of looking at little stuff and finally the news comes out.
And I didn't think much of it at first, I mean, I've never really been into all the hype. If the media is pushing it, it's probably garbage. So, I already kind of had that going for me. And you know, I bought the story at first, I never looked into virology, I memorized all the stuff in medical school, I'd always just bought it, sadly. But I still knew something was wrong. Something didn't smell right with the way they were doing things, because I know how the psychopaths work and shutting everything down. And when you can shut the world down with a flick of a switch, that's a problem. But that was not an accident. And I started looking into that thing they had in October of that year, just before COVID started, this simulation at Johns Hopkins with the 'corona virus' and all the things. You go back and watch it and – EVENT 201 – and it's like, "Well, that's creepy!"
And then you read the 2010 Rockefeller paper, "Operation Lockstep" on a 'corona virus' that escaped from a Wuhan lab and how they closed the world down and all their plans and basically bringing in a technocracy. Which sounds like what they're doing now. So, all that was kind of kooky, and I was like, "That's interesting." But, I heard somebody talking about viruses and how they may be getting it wrong all this time. It piqued my interest, so I started looking into this whole topic more, and I spent the last two years; I don't know how many hundreds of papers I read. Leah can attest to it, it became an obsession. Because that's what it takes sometimes to really pull apart a narrative. You have to go back and actually read the papers, and then track the references back and you have to track those references back to the original papers. We're talking like late 1800's, early 1900's stuff. At this point it's old hat, but I wanted to talk about beliefs about disease before we go on to this elephant in the room.
I mentioned some of this earlier today, the miasma theory, bad air. This whole 'germ theory' comes from this Fracastoro, he was serving the Pope in the 1500's. He came up with this idea that there were these little "seeds of disease" and that they spread by different routes. So, the seeds became the germs, like 'germination' for seeds. Very atomistic, very materialistic, that everything is particles and out to get us. And then 'Germ Theory' came along in the late 1800's and it's still the mainstream view that we all talk about and believe. There are disagreements though, even about this. This was a long time ago, against Philo, and this was sort of against the Atomists.
"There cannot be a new disease without a cause, for this would introduce into the world, contrary to natural law, a coming-to-be from non-being; and to find a new cause for disease would be hard, unless one could demonstrate that a new kind of air, or a strange type of water, or foods never tasted by former generations are flowing into our world from some other worlds or the spaces between them. For it is the things that sustain life that cause sickness. There are no specific seeds of disease. It is the disagreements of our food and drink with us or our mistakes in using them that upset our system."
The gist is that people have been debating this stuff for a long time.
So, 'Germ Theory' in a nutshell, it's not a scientific theory. That's something I wanted to talk about a minute ago. A scientific theory comes after you validate your alternate hypothesis. After you've proven that something causes, that's when a theory's formed. So, all these guys going around saying, "I have a theory" that's colloquial. That just means a conjecture. A theory in science comes at the end of the experiment. That's a big deal. The other thing I wanted to say, scientific laws, are not scientific. Laws are descriptions. Science deals in cause and effects. It's a misnomer to call them scientific laws. When we talk about the Law of Thermodynamics, that's a descriptor of things that happen always, or so they assume. Nobody knows the cause. Like nobody know the cause of entropy. If you could validate with an experiment, you would be able to remove the cause, and vary it, therefore it wouldn't be a law anymore, because you could stop it from happening. If it happens always, it's a description.
Germ Theory is this idea that there's infections, contagious diseases, and various other conditions that result from the action of microorganisms. And we all buy this and believe it. And I did too, until a couple of years ago.
Here are some early guys that were duking this out. I'm sure everybody's heard of Louis Pasteur, 'pasteurization', rabies vaccine, all that good stuff. His rival was Antoine Bechamp. There's a good book on this; There's a couple, actually. I encourage you guys to look into it if you're ever curious. Pasteur was a fraud. I think it was his nephew eventually released his diaries, and those were published. It's pretty fascinating to go through and read what he actually did, and a lot of his quote-unquote 'experiments'.
Bechamp was the father of what they now call "Terrain Theory" and some of you people may have heard of Terrain Theory. I don't like that word because again, 'theory' entails scientific theory. And Terrain Theory is more just the holistic view of the state, the natural health of your body determines your disease states. It's the soil. Your internal soil determines how you function. It actually kind of makes sense, as we apply that to the real world too. How's your soil in your garden, right?
But basically, they were doing stuff on fermentation, really weird things. Pasteur was trying to prove spontaneous generation, he couldn't. And Bechamp showed it wasn't possible. But that these other things in the air could ferment sugar. He eventually discovered what he called, "Microzima" and made some outlandish claims that these are the basic building blocks of life. There's pseudoscience in all these different areas, that's why you have to be careful with rival beliefs. But he's not the only one to show this, that these tiny particles would morph at will, as needed, depending on the environment, into bacteria. And then, into yeast forms. And this was seen later with Gaston Naessens and there were several other guys, (Gunther) Enderlein, basically talking about what's called, 'pleomorphism' which is completely written off in modern medicine. They do not accept that bacteria are pleomorphic, meaning they can change forms, based on how they need. We assume there's one type of bacteria, you know, within a family there could be a few, but there's all these hundreds of specific types.
Interestingly in the early 1900's the US Department of Agriculture wrote papers on pleomorphism, claiming it was real. They were watching bacilli rods turning into cocci, little balls of bacteria. That's a big deal because it shows that these things are responding to our environment. I don't want to get into the bacteria stuff, because this is more about COVID and sort of a bigger picture. But bacteria aren't the little demons that we think they are. We live with them. And this is becoming more accepted as far as the microbiome, I'm sure people have heard about, where we have all these bacteria in our gut, they're in our mouth, they're everywhere. They're just hanging out. And what happened was, they starting finding them associated with certain disease processes, and they just – again – asserted that they caused this, instead of maybe they're the result, right? Maybe they're the effect? Maybe they're there eating dead tissue, just like they do everywhere else in Nature?
But that didn't fit the business model. We "need" antibiotics, we "need" drugs to kill these things. Bechamp was against a lot of that, he kind of called out Pasteur on some of his anthrax fraud. I encourage people to look into it if they want to. (Robert) Koch was another one; The Father of germ theory. He supposedly proved tuberculosis was caused by bacteria. There are several books on this from the early 1900's that completely debunk that. Plenty of people with TB, in fact, most of them never got TB, around all the other TB patients. They don't find the tuberculous bacteria in the early stages of the disease at all, they form later. They could give animals the TB nodules by literally injecting them with almost any foreign matter. You could inject them with latex and they would form "tuberculous" lesions throughout their whole body. You were probably dealing with some kind of exposure at the time, with a lot of people working in mines and all that stuff. And these are things that just aren't looked at. Like we talked about this morning, environmental toxins and nutritional deficiencies, it's just not really thought about, because we get to blame the bug. Because it's easy to find them, so they're kind of a scapegoat.
GERMS AND DISEASE…
This is interesting, Koch's Postulates. He (Koch) came up with these. Which are funny because they never really worked. It's basically a modification of the Scientific Method, trying to prove that a microorganism, bacteria in this case, causes disease.
"The Microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms."
Well guess what? You find most of these things in healthy and unhealthy people. That's where they came up with the whole, "Asymptomatic Carrier" story. 'Some people just 'carry' these things around, and they're just chillin', and they're not hurting anybody. And then one day they go rogue, and they just attack you. And nobody can explain that.' (sic) They can't, for virology, they can't really apply these, because I'll tell you in a minute.
So, Rabbit Trail, again, this is COVID, this is what they claim to be COVID, right? "Whoa, we got pictures! Must be true!" I got a pixel in the sky on my telescope that must be a giant black hole ready to eat us…It has to be. (sic) That's what's going on here: "Point and Declare". When I started looking into this, I saw a guy talking about this. (points to slide)
DO VIRUSES EXIST, AND IS CONTAGION A REALITY?
He said, "Are viruses really exosomes?" And I thought, "What the heck's an exosome?" I dunno. I'd heard the term before. Basically, exosomes are just little particles that they see on these electron microscope images that are ubiquitous in people. They are especially prevalent when you break down tissue, cells. So, when you have diseased cells, you see these little particles over here – right here. These are exosomes. This is claimed to be COVID. Okay? They look the same. So that piqued my interest. And I was like, "Man…I don't know. I gotta start looking into this. So, what I did, I went and read the first published paper on COVID from China. And I saw immediately the issue in the Method Section. You always go to the Methods, in my opinion, if you're going to read a paper, and see what they actually did. And I'll go into that in a minute, but I definitely saw some red flags.
There's another aspect to this with contagion, right? Because there's two different issues here, there's contagion, and then there's what could possibly be causing contagion. And those aren't necessarily the same thing.
Contagion study; Best one ever done. Three of them…1918, 1919. This was at the Spanish Flu. Supposedly the most deadly, contagious thing ever to exist. They took a hundred volunteers, and each time, these were Navy guys, they were prisoners, so they weren't really volunteers. They got volunteered. And they were exposed to actively dying people in the wards with Spanish Flu. They had them talk to each other face to face for five minutes. They had them inhale while the other one exhaled. They took fluids from the sick people, put it in their eyes, their nose, their mouth…Things they would never do today, because it's "not ethical."
Nobody got sick. Not a single person. And you can read these, the book is free on Google Books. It'll blow your mind. And that was a big eye-opener for me. Because you think they're gonna share that in Med School? They're not gonna share that with you. There are paper after paper like this. When dealing with flu's and colds, we still to this day they're talking about influenza and, 'We don't really know what causes it; We don't know why people get it.' They got people on ships for months that are never sick, then all of a sudden, they got an influenza outbreak. I've seen the stupidest things, where they have an influenza outbreak in these random villages that are way apart, no contagion could account for it, to the point where they said, "It must be viruses falling from space." I'm not making that up. 'They just fall down on you.' (sic)
The contagion studies are fascinating, especially when it comes to colds and things like that. They just can't really do it. So, what they did, back in the day, and they still do it to this day, instead of exposing people or animals to each other that are sick to see what happens, they just take diseased junk and inject it into animals. And the animals 'shockingly' get sick. Because you're not supposed to inject diseased things into other people. That's not, again, 'scientific' because the scientific part would be, "what is the supposed natural route of contagion in the first place." That is what you'd have to test in the experiment. Which is what they actually did here. (points to "Contagion? Spanish Flu Studies" slide) They actually did the 'supposed' natural route, which is exposing people fact to face, taking their fluids, and exposing them to that. They not injecting them with stuff, because that's not natural. I mean, unless you're talking about a trauma. That one, it's really kind of gross and they did this with animals too. They did it with horses. Nobody got sick. Nothing. And that was interesting. (new slide) Their final conclusions, after all their negative results, he said, "Despite our negative results, it is nevertheless probably that the disease is transmitted by the discharges from the mouth and nose."
Nobody got sick! I mean, it's just unbelievable that they have to cling onto that belief. Chicken Pox, same thing; Couldn't transmit it. So, what'd they start doing? They started taking pustules of Chicken Pox; They would take animals, they'd shave them, they'd cut lines into their bellies, they'd smear all the crap from the pustules into them, and they'd get a skin reaction! Shocker! And go, "Yup, we transmitted it!" No, you didn't. That's not how it's transmitted in nature. And just because you get a skin lesion from cut open wounds, does not mean you replicated the disease. There are paper after paper where they actually tried doing it with humans, and they actually used to do this stuff. And they just couldn't do it. People weren't getting sick. They did it with Measles. I've got papers on Scarlet Fever where they were taking, because they thought it was a bacteria in the throat, and they'd rub it on monkey's tonsils and people's tonsils, nobody'd get sick. 'So, we just gotta start injecting it.' (sic) And that's what they do to this day. Which is fraudulent. And it's frustrating.
I want to talk about virology real quick because that's more the elephant in the room. I think bacteria can probably be a problem, let's say they are there just cleaning up diseased tissue, well, guess what? They make waste products. And those waste products build up in the blood, and so there could be a massive reaction. It's not them that caused the initial problem though. But, they're breaking down waste, they're making their own waste. If you're pretty toxic, that could be a big deal. That's not the same thing as the contagion model, however.
This is the current definition of viruses:
"Any of a large group of submicroscopic infectious agents that are usually regarded as nonliving extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, animals and plants."
That's kind of the gist of it. And we all use the word. Growing up, when the Doctor can't figure out what's wrong with you, 'Oh, it must be a virus'. Right? We all know it. 'Here's some antibiotics anyway, yeah, it's a virus.' They still do that today. So, these are claimed to be viruses. Ebola, we're all scared of Ebola; Everybody's seen "Outbreak" you know, those movies. HIV. Man, that's a big one, right? H1N1, all these. MERS, SARS, COVID.
SO WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
So, what is the issue? There's no scientific evidence for virus theory. Okay? Let's go back to the Scientific Method. If anything, I want y'all to understand that. I don't want you to believe me on this. I want you to understand the Method. Because it's claimed that viruses are proven scientifically. That means you have a scientific phenomenon, great, you got sick people. That also means you've taken the supposed virus, the independent variable, you've manipulated it and varied it in experiment to prove it causes the disease.
Well, that's the problem. Because they don't find these things in people. They never have. They don't actually see them in humans. They were never identified in nature to begin with, to even go, 'Hmm, I wonder if that's causing the disease?' Because, see, in science, your independent variable, number one, has to be real. It has to exist. You can't manipulate and vary something that doesn't exist. So, that's a big deal.
So, what did they do to get around this? You have to go back, before the common definition now, they had a different definition of viruses and virology until the 1950's. They used to think they were replicating proteins. Not this RNA, DNA stuff. Before that, 'virus' was just used as a colloquial term for a poison, or a toxin. You can find studies on bacteria in the 1800's where they interchanged the word, the 'infection' or the 'bacteria' with the 'virus' – "the virus of 'whatever' bacteria."
You have to be careful with all these and understand how they've changed the language over the years as well. It's pretty fascinating. But early on, they basically used what is called, "Tissue Cultures" or animals, but they would take like, and it's terrible, they would take tracheas from aborted infants. And then they would take diseased tissue from someone with this disease; They would inoculate the tissue cultures with the diseased tissue, something would happen, and the tissue would break down, which is already breaking down, and they would claim, "This proves virus." So, if y'all understand what we talked about earlier with Affirming the Consequent Illogical Fallacy, that is a big one. That's huge. Because, you can't claim it's proof of something never proven to be real in the first place. Okay? I can't just make it up and say, "Gooklesnerkledirks are causing this. I see my effect, therefore this proves that those are out there getting you." You can't do that. You actually have to use the thing and see if it's causing your effect.
So basically, they injected animals with putrefied matter and they made them sick. Big shocker! What they call virus "isolation" now, you'll see this everywhere. I was kind of duped by this at first, because they use this in all their headlines, "Virus Isolated". What does 'isolate' mean?
"To separate from another substance so as to obtain in a pure or free state."
How can you isolate something that's never been proven to exist? And I'm serious, you guys will think I'm crazy, I have searched every paper I could find. At first, I just searched every 'corona virus' paper. Because once you read one, you realize they're already begging the question, in that viruses exist. So, they do their little cell culture stuff; Let's take with COVID what they did: They took lung fluid from a sick person that had an atypical pneumonia, the lung fluid has all kinds of nasty stuff in it. They spun it down a little bit, they put it into, I think for the first study it was actually liver cancer cell line, in a petri dish – liver cancer cells – which are already abnormal and sickly and dying. And then they get what's called these 'cytopathic effect' which just means 'cell breakdown' and that's claimed to be proof of the virus, and isolation of the virus.
I saw that in the first paper I read, and I was like, "Okay, that's a fallacy. But surely, they've gotta have it somewhere, that was proven that that effect can only be caused by a virus, right? Surely." And the other thing that they claim is that they sequenced the genome of it, and it was 87% similar to SARS CoV1. So, I reached out to a guy who was talking about this stuff online, and I was kind of like, "Okay, I'll look into what you're saying." I messaged him. And I was like, "Okay, I see the problem with the fist paper. But what about this genetic stuff?" He goes, "Go read the SARS CoV1 paper." Yeah, good idea. So, I go and read the SARS CoV1 paper. Well guess what? They did the same thing! And I was like, "Okay, they don't have one here either." Then you have to track back every paper, every paper, until the originals and you find there was never anything there. So that's what kind of got my interest piqued.
There were a lot of people, I mean like prominent people, were coming out and saying, "Yeah, SARS CoV2 has not been proven to be isolated. But these were people who were still believers in all these other viruses. So, I thought, "Let me go read all the other virus papers; They must have the real deal. They must know how to truly isolate a virus, versus these papers…"
No. Every virus paper's the same. They all use the same method. There's no difference across the board. At all. And this has been done from Day One. Again, you have to prove the existence of something first before you can even claim it 'causes' anything. You gotta find it. Basically, the current method goes back to (John Franklin) Enders won the Nobel Prize in 1954 for this Method, that's why it's still used today. It's the Gold Standard. You take fluid from a host, blood, fecal matter, throat washings… He added them to milk. He took some stuff and put it in milk, that's a good start. Spin it down. You add it to abnormal aneuploid cell lines, and they got like 80 chromosomes compared to our normal set. They used monkey kidney cells, which is still used today. That's a big one. That's a favorite.
They add antibiotics to this culture, not to mention that antibiotics are toxic to kidney cells. Nephrotoxic. They add some fetal calf serum, they wait for a few days. If the cells start to break down, they call it the "cytopathic effect" and that's claimed to be proof of a virus. And this is done today, just like it was in 1954. It is a "Begging the Question" fallacy because viruses have never been proven in the first place, to cause cytopathic effect. They're not only doing an Affirming the Consequent Fallacy, right? I could at least use that fallacy and say, "If it rains my car will be wet. My car is wet therefore it must have rained." That's fallacious, but at least I know rain is real. You can't even do that here. So, they're actually Begging the Question, meaning they're assuming the thing they're supposed to be proving in the first place, and then they're flipping it backwards, doing the Affirming the Consequent Fallacy. So that's what I really wanted to get across, because you can spot this all day, every day.
ENDERS' VIRUS ISOLATION METHOD
This was his (Enders) Method. Basically, you take stuff from the mouth, you put it in a cell culture, you do all these steps. And they use language to make you think they actually got what they claim. They'll say, "We took the isolate." And back in the early days, everything was an isolate. It was like, "We took the virus." And so, like with somebody with a cold, they'd take snot and they say, "We isolated the virus from the person." They are already just assuming this, right? That there's a virus there. And then they would do a tissue culture and then they'd say it again, "We isolated the virus this way." And what they do is they do this over and over and over either in animals or cell lines, where they get breakdown, they take the breakdown products, they introduce it into another cell line, they get that one to break down, and they do it over and over. They call that, "passaging the virus." And they do this in animals too. They'll inject them, and it's disgusting, they'll literally take the nastiest stuff you can imagine and inject it into the peritoneal cavity, they'll inject it into their testicles, their testicles will literally start to die, they'll take the testicles, grind them up, and then do it again to another animal. And another animal, over and over. Eighteen times and go, "Oh, we passaged the virus 18 times." It's literally disgusting. And I can't believe it ever passed muster.
This is what Ender's claim was proof of a virus. The problem with Ender's paper in 1954, he got the exact same effect without adding anything to his sample. And he admits this at the end. So, cytopathic effect, this breakdown, occurred just from the procedure itself. You would think he wouldn't win a Nobel Prize for that. Right?
Dr. Stefan Lanka is a guy that's been calling out this stuff for a while. I had never heard of him. He actually won a trial in Germany from their Supreme Court, because he was a virologist, in the beginning of his career, and when HIV came around, he started seeing some of the tragic ways people were treated and he started calling into question some of this stuff, and he started looking into it. You can find his videos on YouTube.
Anyway, he challenged several scientists, "scientists" virologists in Germany about, 'Prove There's A Measles Virus'. He won! German Supreme Court. You think that was ever made popular in the news media? Anybody hear about that? No. And what he did in this trial, and he's done it now with COVID, he's still involved doing this. He took the exact same methods they do, without any sample from a person, and got the same effect, and showed that it's the process they're doing that's damaging the cells. It's nothing to do with an 'entity' never proven to exist. And so, that's a problem. Whether anything will come of this or not, I don't think so. I think there's too much dogma, there's too much money involved, because so much is built on this 'belief.' That was his results.
MOST RECENT "CONTROL" BY LANKA
These are his most recent ones, but you can see he didn't add anything to the samples, and he still got them to break down. He added anything, "yeast RNA" and added just antibiotics, and he got the same effects. And that's a big deal.
MULLIS ON HIV
I wanted people to hear this, because Kary Mullis, I'm sure you have all heard about the PCR Test with COVID. Kary Mullis was the inventor of the PCR Test. Kary Mullis was also one of the biggest dissidents against HIV. Which is interesting. And he went on a tear for them using his test to quote-unquote, "find HIV." Because that's not what it was doing. In this clip, which you're not gonna be able to hear, Mullis basically, and you can find these online, it's fascinating. He was an interesting guy. Basically, what he did that got the ball rolling with this is kind of what I've done now He was chosen to write a paper on HIV. And he's like, "Okay. To start my paper, I'm going to write HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." And he stopped, and he thought, "Wait a minute. I need a reference for that. I need a paper that proves that. I need validation. Which is what we're supposed to have."
And he couldn't find it. So, he starts going to all the big-name guys, he's like, "Where's the paper that shows HIV is the cause of AIDS?" And they'd give him something on some simian leukemia thing. And he's like, "That's not what I need. I need HIV." And in the quote here he's beside himself, and he finally figured out, "They don't have it; They don't know! They don't have a clue."And it's true, because it's not there. It's the same with all of these. And it's very frustrating when you start looking into it, and see the deception.
VIRUS "ISOLATION" SARS COV2
And I don't want to call it a deception. Again, it's a false paradigm. It's a belief system, because they made up this story a long time ago, in the 1800's and they just assumed it was true. And so now they're claiming all these effects are proof of cause, when cause has never been validated. And that's why I said this morning, and I'll say it again, is that you have to disassociate 'effects' from 'causes.' You don't get to just point to an effect as proof of your cause, if you have never validated that. You can't just make it up. It's a big deal.
This was done with COVID, these monkey kidney cells inoculated, this was done with CoV2.
WHAT ABOUT THE PICTURES??
So, then people go, "Well what about the electron microscope pictures?" That's proof!"Well first of all, pictures aren't proof of any cause and effect relationship. Pictures are pictures. (points to slide) I could show that to a thousand people, and they would interpret it a thousand different ways. This is where pre-suppositionalism comes in and understanding that you cannot, we do not learn things just by looking at things. We already have knowledge, and we interpret things by the knowledge we have. (points to picture) So, if you believe those are, let's say those are little popcorn balls on Mars, sure, I could do that. Or I could tell you that's supposed to be the polio virus. Right? I could make it up, and this is the same thing we see with art, right? You have somebody interpret a painting, you're going to get a hundred different interpretations. Because if you don't know what the author intended, you're gonna just make up a story. That's what they do here. Not to mention the problems with electron microscopes, which actually destroy the tissue. That's a big problem too. This was claimed to be polio. (net slide)
These are problems with electron microscopy, but Harold Hillman was a biologist who called out all the mainstream guys over and over again and nobody would debate him. He's brilliant. You can find his videos on YouTube. He's dead now. He talked about so many issues with these things, what you do to these samples just to get them into an electron microscope, basically you're probably seeing artifacts in there. Because the ways that these are done damages the cells and tissues so bad. It's all dead tissue. You don't have a clue what you're looking at. And I knew this in Med School. I remember seeing things they were telling me, 'This is this, and this does that.' I'm going, "There's no way they know that. They have no idea that's what that does." They just Point and Declare. And it's very frustrating.
I could spin a story, I've done this trick, I've pulled it on people on Facebook. I go, "Man, yeah, somebody was sick, and I found this paper and they showed all these viruses in them, and I was like, "Look at all these; look at these guys, they're everywhere, these are directly from patients.'" They're like, "Yeah, see, yeah, viruses are everywhere!"I'm like, "I'm just kidding; These are exosomes from human tears. Okay. These are particles they find in human tears."
Now the funniest part is, and people that are supposed to be dying from "viruses" they can't find any of these in the people. These are supposed to be millions and millions exploding from our cells, killing us. Doesn't happen. A couple of guys I'm involved with, they debated a Yale virologist about this. And they asked him, "If we take a sample from a sick COVID patient, can we find the virus in them?" "No." "Why not?" "There's not enough." "If we pull ten samples, could we see the virus then?" "No. Not enough." "What about ten-thousand?" "No."
Once they got to one hundred-thousand, they guy stopped answering questions. Okay? And I'm not making this up. It's comedic, that it's tragic. That this should be everywhere and people that are supposedly infested with viruses you should see particles galore; you should be able to take those particles directly from a human, and figure out if they're actually causing anything at all. That just doesn't happen.
The other issue is, in these cell cultures, all these particles are also made, but they don't account for them! So, they just pick whatever particle they want, from this little cell culture and go, "That's a virus." And I want to go, "How do you know it's not one of these? How do you know it's not an exosome?" They got papers from virology and exosome people going, "Yeah, we can't really distinguish the two." Well, that's crazy! So how do you know one even exists in the first place? It's a big deal. (next slide)
This was taken, this was published this year, these are samples from people with positive COVID PCR Tests and negative. They find the same particles in both. Okay? Same things they're claiming are COVID, they're in everybody. But there's just a few of them. So… that's a problem. And that's mentioned in a lot of these papers.
COMMOM RESPONSES FROM THE MAINSTREAM
- "The virus is too weak to isolate/purify directly from the fluids."
- "You're not a virologist, you don't get to determine what isolation is."
- "A virus needs a host in order to replicate, so that's why we use the cell culture."
- "There's not enough virus present in the fluids to isolate/purify it."
These are the responses I've gotten. I was on Twitter for a while, which I don't recommend ever going on Twitter. And I got involved with some fifty-person thread with virologists and microbiologists, trying to kind of just ask questions. I got called a lot of names. I never got a single scientific paper for viruses. Because, number one, they don't know what science means, because I would ask them, "Can you give me a scientific validation?" And then they'd throw all the standard papers, and I'm like, "No, I've already read those. That's my issue. I know those papers, I need an experiment. I need an independent variable, I need to see where this was ever done." And then I'd get a lot of the responses like, "Science doesn't prove things anyway." And I'm like, "Okay, whatever." But this was a fun one: "The virus is too weak to isolate/purify directly from the fluids."
Uh, that's insane. Because they're supposed to be killing us. And if you can't ever find one in a person, how do you know they exist in the first place? Again, to form a hypothesis, "I see X. I think it's causing Y." Where were these ever seen to have anyone ever say, "Hmm. I wonder if that's causing this disease?" You have to have that! You can't find it. Doesn't exist. Next one: "You're not a virologist, you don't get to determine what isolation is."That's not an argument. At all. That's just ad-homonym. So, bypass that one."A virus needs a host in order to replicate, so that's why we use the cell culture." What do you think the human body is?? It's a giant cell culture! Should be the best one we have, considering they're supposed to be killing us. And then the Fourth, "There's not enough virus present in the fluids to isolate/purify it."Which is just kind of the same as the first one. They're all really bad answers. I mean, these are from top people. That's the best we got. I'm not getting papers, I'm getting this stuff. So that has been my Big Red Flag these past two years looking into this. And I promise you guys, I have looked. As hard as I can. And it's a problem. And it's weird when you start coming across some of these guys who are sorta mainstream. Like, there was a guy for HIV called Peter Deusberg, he was big like cancer researcher. He came out saying that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. But he still believed there was a thing called HIV. And then there's people that came out saying that there's really no such thing as HIV, but all these other viruses exist. Well that's a problem because every single paper is done the same way, no matter the "virus", right? So, if SARS CoV2 is bunk, like some of these people are claiming, it applies to all the rest–because it's the same stuff; it's the same method every time. You have to read them to know that. But it really is, it's a little mind-blowing and scary, when you realize it.
WHAT ABOUT TESTING?
I want to talk about testing because that's been the story for the last two years. Because that's what we've had, a 'pandemic of testing'. You can't test for something not proven to exist. Okay? My analogy would be, I claim every night, unicorns are invading my yard. And I take some microphones and set them up around my yard, and I just record sounds. And the next day, I splice all the sounds together, to what a unicorn mating call might sound like. And then I whittle it down and get it and I make a test that seeks for that sound waveform; That's my test for finding mating unicorns. That's what they did with PCR. Okay? So, they take a crap-ton of genetic materials, I mean we're talking lung samples, just non-purified stuff, and they basically already have a template. And so, they cut out everything they don't want; They build the template in a computer, and they make a test based on that.
They made the PCR Test for SARS CoV1 before any papers were ever even made. Done. No research at all. PCR finally started getting called out, even Doctors in my town who still believe all this, they finally understood the PCR was nonsense. Well then they went with the, "Well, we gotta do the rapid test. You gotta do the antigen test." Again, there's no antigen test, because you're not detecting the thing you're thinking that you are. The big thing now is the spike protein. They're like, "Oh, well, the spike!" Spike from what? Where did you ever get a spike from a virus? There's no virus. So, whatever this protein is, you're probably just finding it in people that are sick, sometimes sick, sometimes not. And you're just getting lots of positives and negatives, and you're telling people that they have something that they don't. And they did this with HIV. You can have a positive HIV test for seventy different things. You know how many lives have been ruined from that? That's evil. And that's stuff Christians should know.
You can go to Africa. You don't need a test. There's no HIV test anyway that's accurate, but you don't even need a test in Africa. You need to have weight loss for a few days, and some diarrhea, or a cough, and you have AIDS in Africa. And then you get put on horrible, toxic medication. That's how you get the numbers that they got, and that's how you get "philanthropic" organizations to go do good things that aren't good. It's more heinous than people actually care to believe. Because for some reason, people don't understand the depravity of man. But these organizations are sick, and most people aren't in on this, okay? Again, this is all, we all believed it. Right? It's just belief system. Until you go knocking down everything, and trying to deconstruct it, going, "I need the validation", you're lost with this stuff. And it's easy, I guess, to buy it. But enough people have called this out.
I never knew there was this huge cohort of HIV questioners, that were in all in the scientific community. I never knew that. We didn't learn that in med school. Very smart people that were calling it out, going, "We need evidence; we need evidence." Then people just dismissed them, called them names, of course, because that's all they can do is call names. You can't actually just debate and have arguments. That to me is a Red Flag. If you can't actually support your claims, there's a problem there. And we all have to start doing that with people when they start making these positive claims, you ask them, "How do you know that? How did you verify that?" Don't give me a story, don't give me a headline, don't throw articles at me. When you make a claim, and you use somebody else's argument, that argument becomes your argument, and you have to back it up. People need to understand that.
I don't make any positive claims here. I don't have a clue what all makes us ill. There are probably a million things we don't even know. But I can tell you right now that what they're telling you about this stuff has never been proven true. And I see people who kind of like to waver, and like, "Well, just because it's not proven true doesn't mean it's not real."
Okay…That's a pretty big burden of proof though that you have, right? You don't just get to make it up and then, it's one thing to have conventions and, 'let's say this is just a model of disease, and we don't really know if these are real.' That's fine, if you're not locking people down, and jabbing them with things they don't want, masking them and taking them away from family members. That's when it becomes a problem. When your models turn into a religion that is tyrannical, that's a problem.
And Christians should have been at the forefront of this. And that's the bigger point of this talk; it's not about virology. This is about Christians need to be able to call out all this stuff that's rammed down our throats from on-high in academia, from white coat, and all these other people with degrees. I promise you they don't know near as much, and I'm not saying all of them. But, the majority of them. They don't actually know what science is, and they don't what they're talking about a lot of this stuff. A lot of this is "theories" not scientific theories, just "theories" and models, to try to help explain something. And you could go into other topics about this, quantum physics, and you could go into even the models of the molecules that nobody has ever seen, right? Why is carbon number 666? I don't know… Seems kind of convenient; number of Man, carbon, Man… I don't know.
There's some interesting stuff with that. You start looking into a lot of the occult stuff, and you realize that a lot of these guys had a lot of ties to academia and stuff in the past. But it again, that stuff is fun on the outside; It's not important. The main thing is, how do you know what you know? Why do you believe this expert over that expert? That's the most important thing.
And the other thing I wanted to talk about the PCR, even at the very beginning, they admitted this, there's no Gold Standard for the PCR. You know what that means? So, like, if I had developed a cancer test, without any tissue specimen to begin with, and started running tests on you guys, telling you that you had cancer, I would have been put in jail. That's fraud. And that's what they did. They made a PCR test, with no sample. And this is still admitted by the FDA in their most recent paper.
Right here…blah, blah, blah.
"Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full-length RNA."
What that means is, they made up the sequence in a computer and made a test against it. Based on nothing at all in reality. This is done in genomics every day, and I don't want to go down the genomics rabbit trail, but I promise you, there's a lot of stuff in that subject that's probably not what we're being told. And that bothers me because I sucked all that stuff up; I love those topics in medical school and pre-med. It doesn't mean a lot of these effects aren't real, that's what I don't want people to go, "Oh, you don't believe sickness is real! You don't believe in measles!" What?? Just because I'm telling you that the cause is not proven, doesn't mean the effect isn't real. It's the story behind it that has to be validated.
My mom did that to me when we started talking about this. She's like, "You mean people don't get sick?!" I'm like, "What? How does that even enter your head? I'm a freaking Doctor." It drives me nuts. I don't want to belabor this.
THE BIG PICTURE
Big picture. This is the bigger picture. Claiming 'effects' as proof of cause is 'not scientific'. We should be Bereans in all of our life, you apply the same principles when somebody starts making claims about Scripture, you go, "Show me that. Show me that in Scripture. How do you know that?" And I know there's gray areas, but there's a lot of this stuff when it comes to science, it's so hyper-specific, you can nail people on it. And I'm not telling you go around picking fights with people, you can do it in subtle ways. But you will be amazed when people start claiming science, and you ask them about their independent variable, and their experiment and their phenomenon, and they're like, "What are you talking about?" Well, you're talking about science, I thought we were talking about the same thing here. They don't get it. And it's eye opening. Always ask, "How do I know this?" I think with anything. And, "Are these claims validated, and how?"
So, models, again, models are great, unless they start locking down the world. People have models of Visible Light Spectrum, as if it's a wave, nobody knows what light is. Nobody. They say, "Oh, it's photons" and another guy says, "It's a wave" and it's like, you can't study light. You don't see light. I don't see light, I see things lit up. You don't see light. So that's a whole big can of worms.
And I think there are some things we're not meant to know. I'll be honest with you. And there are limits to this stuff. As a non-empiricist, you have to start looking and going, "Can I ever really discover cause and effect at all with the scientific method?" I don't know. That's a philosophical issue. Gordon Clark would say, "No, you can't figure out the cause of anything."I think there are probably macro things you could figure out, but everything leads to an infinite regress of, 'well what caused that, well what caused that'. Well guess what? God caused it. All. But there are proximate and ultimate causes, and I do think there are bigger picture things that you can kind of figure out. But models are great until they start ruining people's lives, and become religion. And that's the issue I've seen in the last couple years.
"On closer analysis we even find that science knows no 'bare facts' at all but that the 'facts' that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational. This being the case, the history of science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as the ideas it contains, and these ideas in turn will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes and entertaining as the minds of those that invented them."
– Paul Feyerabend
This was what I thought was a cool quote from a philosopher of science."On closer analysis we even find that science knows no 'bare facts' at all."That is very much in line with Christianity; There are no 'brute facts.' We interpret the world based on our presuppositions. As a Biblicist, we interpret things based on Scripture. Because that's where we get our truth. And this applies everywhere, so these people saying, "I can just look at something and interpret it", no you don't; You have to already have knowledge about things to interpret them.
"…knows no 'bare facts' at all but that the 'facts' that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational. This being the case, the history of science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as the ideas it contains, and these ideas in turn will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes and entertaining as the minds of those that invented them."
I think he gets science wrong here. Most philosophical scientists never talk about the scientific method. They always talk about induction, and correlation and statistics. Gordon Clark did the same thing, which was frustrating. I read his book, "The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God" and almost everything he talked about in the book had nothing to do with actual science. That's the bigger problem I'm seeing is that, until people actually understand what science is, Christians especially are going to belittle science, because they're mistaking pseudoscience for science. And that's a big problem too, because I do think there's probably a place for the scientific method; It's very logical, it's very basic, we all understand it. Even the principles apply to non-scientific things, like tinkering to figure out what's broken on a car, right? It's just process of elimination, trial and error, this causes this…it's the same principle. It just that you're trying to apply it to the natural world.
Because I do see a lot of Christians especially get caught up in bashing science, because they equate it with all the nonsense, not realizing that there's a difference. But real science, I don't even know if it's being done anymore.
CONSPIRACY, OR BELIEF?
I wanted to play this pretty bad, it's Frances Schaffer, and he's basically talking about you don't need conspiracies for this stuff to happen. You just need…you need a media. That's all you need. You need story-tellers. And once they craft the narrative, and you have a willing, receptive public, there's no conspirators needed. And I don't think this was some grand conspiracy. I'm sure that there are people, when you start realizing they're doing these pseudo-epidemic trainings, and all this stuff… Event201…they've got one for 2025 already, called, SPARS, instead of SARS. S-P-A-R-S – SPARS25. I'm sure something will come, but we have to be on alert when that stuff happens because it's gonna happen again. It's amazing how they can recycle all these stories over and over again.
They did it with ZIKA "virus" right? The little kids being born with an acephaly, yeah, that's not a virus doing that, that's probably the neuro-toxic pesticides they're spraying around in those areas. But that's another thing, these quote-unquote, "outbreaks" are often cover-ups for toxic exposures, chemical spills, chemical exposures, all kinds of this stuff. It's just interesting. I've got papers linking, they showed that arsenic can cause chicken pox. It's amazing when you actually dig deep on some of these things. But you have to go find it. And I don't expect everybody to do that. But it's kind of driven me a bit crazy in the past few years.
I just added this. Because a friend of mine on Facebook, he's in South Africa, his dad was a preacher, he's Reformed, really good guy, and he's a Christian and I've got him kind of looking into all this stuff. And he always tags me on Facebook with quotes that he finds. I thought this was an interesting one. It's long, but I thought it was good.
"The absurdity of forsaking Christianity in the sciences, while maintaining it in the church is often the result of cowardice, and often due to an implicit acceptance of the supremacy of unbelief. Those who adhere to and practice this believe they have found the best way to be counted among the so-called civilized and enlightened people of our age, yet without forsaking the faith. Therefore, many of the fiercest proponents of godless philosophies themselves – often without realizing their consequences – have been Christians, because they seek exculpation for their adherence to the Gospel by means of their scientific unbelief.
In this way Christians are often swept away by anti-Christian prejudice. But those who could previously be excused because they could not see the full implications of the spirit of this age, are now without excuse. The Christian worldview has been vindicated by the fruitlessness and depravity of the anti-Christian view. That divine revelation should reign supreme in the sciences is evidenced by the confusion and violence that now characterize the life of the misled and agonized nations which have forsaken Christian principles."
– Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer
Basically, most Christians have given in to secularism. And they suck up all the secular nonsense, and instead of that, Christians should be at the forefront…I'm not saying doing science, but we should be intelligent, just like we are, like I say, in the Scriptures, being Bereans in Scripture. Be it in every aspect of life. Learn what these terms mean, so that you can have conversations with other people. Because the 'Normies' who are going out there talking about science, you know, the lady with "In Science We Trust" on her shirt, she's not gonna engage, or have a clue what she's talking about. But other people will.
People that have degrees after their name, and they start spouting science, and then you can kind of just pin them down and go, "What do you mean? What experiment?" You can just do that, run through the Scientific Method. Once you know the purpose of it, it's so easy, and it's helpful for both sides. Because a lot of people, if they're intellectually honest will go, "You know what, I actually don't know how I know that." Most people will not do that. They'll call you names, they'll call you crazy.
One last thing before I stop this, my friend Daniel, who send me this… So, there's a lady who's working in a science lab and she just came out against the whole COVID thing when she saw one of the recent documentaries. My friend shared the testimony of this lady, because it changed her world, she's like, "I realize my whole career has almost been a hoax." And she was honest. And it's true.
Well he shared this, with Jonathan Sarfadi who is a "Christian Creationist" creation scientist, you can't science creation, by the way. Sarfadi wouldn't engage with us a couple years ago on this whole thing…just called us names, and he called this lady an "anti-vax loon." That's all he said. For coming out and saying, "Yeah, I've spent my life, I see the errors, I'm so upset." And that's all he got. And this is a Christian guy saying this. It's pathetic. And that's not how we should respond to anything like that.
It's the same when we hear stuff that we think is crazy, just like y'all probably think I'm crazy. Don't jump down people's throats, just say, "How do you know?" Appeals to incredulity, "Oh, that's just stupid!" Don't do that. Try to at least look into it. I think we got to Preterism probably by being open minded, a little bit. And I find that Preterists are more open to a lot of other concepts, so, I'm not saying believe everything, either. Here's the problem I see, don't jump down the newest alternative path either. If something comes along and it's obviously against kind of the mainstream that you already know is false, don't just latch on to the false dichotomy. Because that also has to be validated.
I see this a lot in the "truther communities" where, they love somebody else's news story or gimmick, and they just run with that, and I'm going, "No, no, no, that's just as much nonsense as this other stuff." You have to be careful. Because it's easy, it's emotional, going, "Oh finally, these people are saying something I like." It's confirmation bias. Make sure you just keep a good clear head. And always take a step back and go, "You know, I'll look into that."
Last thing, I promise. I have a "friend" an online friend, but he's an ophthalmologist up in Iowa, and about a year ago he was asking me about this COVID stuff, and I told him my views, and I mean he did not like it. He went off on me, all this stuff, finally this year, I stopped talking to him for a while, because he was just belligerent about it, and he finally came back and was like, "I want to talk some more about this." And I was like, "You've got to show me scientific validation." And he's like, "I get it, what you're saying." He's like, "I understand there are problems with virology, that there's no scientific, but, but, but, but…" then he went into all this other stuff.
I'm like, "I don't want to talk about it anymore, man. Like, I just want the Scientific Method, that's all I want. If you're admitting it's not there, that's good enough for me. You know. At least he was able to say that, because this guy's like pretty Left, like, bought all the stuff. That was a big, like for me, I was like, "Holy Cow! That's amazing for somebody like this to come out and admit it. Now, I don't think he'd admit that in public. Anyway, I wanted to bring that up, because you're probably going to eventually hear more about this. And to a lot of people it sounds just crazy. To me, it didn't at first, because I'm more one of those people that just goes, "OK…I'll just go and I'll just look." Because I've learned enough now in my life, I've had enough paradigm shifts that almost nothing surprises me at this point. I mean, Jesus came back in 70 A.D. like, "What!?" Yeah, it's true! Anyway, it's fun to look into all this.
And I don't want to belabor it, I've been going a long time, so, I know y'all probably have lots of questions. These are a few resources: "Virus Mania" is a good book. They go through a lot of these; Very well-done, this is a brand-new edition this year. "AIDS, Opium, Diamonds and Empire" by Nancy Turner-Banks, she was an OB-GYN. Awesome stuff, she goes into of the big picture of world economics; Lots of interesting stuff with that, on the diamond trade and opium and all that. "What Really Makes You Ill" and I'm friends with Dawn Lester, I've done an interview with her, their book is about this thick. I'm not saying I believe everything on it, but it's very well researched, and it gets your mind going about all these other things that could be making people ill, but just aren't talked about. And, "Breaking The Spell" is Dr. Tom Cowan who is a retired Doctor who's kind of gone into this stuff. He was like me, he kind of bought the whole virus stuff until a couple years ago, and started looking into it. He's very sharp, and that book is about 45 pages, it breaks everything down, as simple as you can, if you really want to look into it.