Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🚨🚨 FOLLOW-UP: HOLDEN THORP'S LEGITIMIZATION MACHINE EXPOSED While Ioannidis Faced Death Threats to His Family & Career Destruction for Questioning Lockdowns, Thorp Used Science Magazine to Champion Them Prof. John Ioannidis (Stanford University) in his own words: “Death threats were very commonplace.” “Also to you? Of course. I think...

SciGuardians's profile picture

ScienceGuardians

7,215 subscribers

34,988 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

NOW - NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya Vows to END Censorship in Medicine and Restore Free Speech To Science This is a paradigm shift. NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya says the era of silencing doctors and scientists is over. “Free speech is absolutely essential for scientific progress.” “If we had had it during the pandemic, we would have had much better outcomes.” He pointed to how basic truths, like natural immunity, were treated as forbidden knowledge. “You couldn’t say that if you had COVID and recovered, you’d have some immunity.” “Those kind of taboos are anathema to scientific progress.” Under new leadership, Bhattacharya says that will change. Debate will no longer be shut down. Questions that were once off-limits will now be explored—openly and honestly. One of those questions: autism. “I don’t know what causes autism to rise,” “It just looks like people haven’t really asked the question in a deep and honest way.” He pledged to break that silence. “We’re going to shatter that taboo so people can ask the question honestly—grounded in truth.” With Kennedy and Trump leading the charge, Bhattacharya made his mission clear: “We’re going to have free speech in science—and free speech in medicine.”
1:10

NOW - NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya Vows to END Censorship in Medicine and Restore Free Speech To Science This is a paradigm shift. NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya says the era of silencing doctors and scientists is over. “Free speech is absolutely essential for scientific progress.” “If we had had it during the pandemic, we would have had much better outcomes.” He pointed to how basic truths, like natural immunity, were treated as forbidden knowledge. “You couldn’t say that if you had COVID and recovered, you’d have some immunity.” “Those kind of taboos are anathema to scientific progress.” Under new leadership, Bhattacharya says that will change. Debate will no longer be shut down. Questions that were once off-limits will now be explored—openly and honestly. One of those questions: autism. “I don’t know what causes autism to rise,” “It just looks like people haven’t really asked the question in a deep and honest way.” He pledged to break that silence. “We’re going to shatter that taboo so people can ask the question honestly—grounded in truth.” With Kennedy and Trump leading the charge, Bhattacharya made his mission clear: “We’re going to have free speech in science—and free speech in medicine.”

Overton

57,650 views • 1 year ago

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya just pledged to support dissident scientists in his Senate confirmation hearing: “Dissent is the very essence of science.” “23% of Americans have not much or no confidence at all … in scientists to act in the public’s best interests.” “I have five concrete goals if confirmed as Director of the NIH.” “First, NIH research should focus on research that solves the American chronic disease crisis.” “Life expectancy flatlined between 2012 and 2019, plummeted during the pandemic, and still has not bounced back.” “The chronic disease crisis is severe, with hundreds of millions of Americans—children and adults—suffering from obesity, heart disease, cancer and more.” “Second, NIH-supported science should be replicable, reproducible, and generalizable.” “Unfortunately, much bought modern biomedical science fails this basic test.” “Third, if confirmed, I will establish a culture of respect for free speech in science and scientific dissent at the NIH.” “Over the last few years, top NIH officials oversaw a culture of cover-up, obfuscation, and a lack of tolerance for ideas that differ from theirs.” “Fourth, the NIH must recommit to its mission to fund the most innovative biomedical research agenda possible to improve American health.” “Fifth, the NIH must embrace, and vigorously regulate, risky research that has the possibility of causing a pandemic.” “If confirmed, I'll carry out President Trump's agenda of making the public science institutions of this country worthy of trust and serve to Make America Healthy Again.” Jay Bhattacharya
4:59

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya just pledged to support dissident scientists in his Senate confirmation hearing: “Dissent is the very essence of science.” “23% of Americans have not much or no confidence at all … in scientists to act in the public’s best interests.” “I have five concrete goals if confirmed as Director of the NIH.” “First, NIH research should focus on research that solves the American chronic disease crisis.” “Life expectancy flatlined between 2012 and 2019, plummeted during the pandemic, and still has not bounced back.” “The chronic disease crisis is severe, with hundreds of millions of Americans—children and adults—suffering from obesity, heart disease, cancer and more.” “Second, NIH-supported science should be replicable, reproducible, and generalizable.” “Unfortunately, much bought modern biomedical science fails this basic test.” “Third, if confirmed, I will establish a culture of respect for free speech in science and scientific dissent at the NIH.” “Over the last few years, top NIH officials oversaw a culture of cover-up, obfuscation, and a lack of tolerance for ideas that differ from theirs.” “Fourth, the NIH must recommit to its mission to fund the most innovative biomedical research agenda possible to improve American health.” “Fifth, the NIH must embrace, and vigorously regulate, risky research that has the possibility of causing a pandemic.” “If confirmed, I'll carry out President Trump's agenda of making the public science institutions of this country worthy of trust and serve to Make America Healthy Again.” Jay Bhattacharya

Holden Culotta

203,693 views • 1 year ago

🚨 This is ENORMOUS. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya says CENSORSHIP was a huge problem during COVID and that we will have free speech in science moving forward. THIS 1000X. "One of the main problems during the pandemic was censorship. Free speech is absolutely essential for scientific progress. Free speech, if we had had it during the pandemic, we would have had much better outcomes." "So when Secretary Kennedy says that we're going to have gold standard science, what holds that up is free speech." "And when Secretary Kennedy talks about the taboos in science, he's absolutely right. I, as a scientist, I don't know what causes autism to rise. I read the scientific literature and it just looks like people haven't really asked the question in a deep and honest way." "What we're going to do is we're going to shatter that taboo so that people can ask the question honestly so I could look at the scientific literature and give an answer that's grounded in truth." "You saw during the pandemic it was taboo to say certain things. You couldn't say that if you had COVID and recovered you'd have some immunity, for instance." "Those kind of taboos are anathema to scientific progress. And in this administration, under Secretary Kennedy's leadership and President Trump's leadership, we are not going to have those taboos. We're going to have free speech in science and free speech in medicine." 💯 Jay Bhattacharya Robert F. Kennedy Jr
1:56

🚨 This is ENORMOUS. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya says CENSORSHIP was a huge problem during COVID and that we will have free speech in science moving forward. THIS 1000X. "One of the main problems during the pandemic was censorship. Free speech is absolutely essential for scientific progress. Free speech, if we had had it during the pandemic, we would have had much better outcomes." "So when Secretary Kennedy says that we're going to have gold standard science, what holds that up is free speech." "And when Secretary Kennedy talks about the taboos in science, he's absolutely right. I, as a scientist, I don't know what causes autism to rise. I read the scientific literature and it just looks like people haven't really asked the question in a deep and honest way." "What we're going to do is we're going to shatter that taboo so that people can ask the question honestly so I could look at the scientific literature and give an answer that's grounded in truth." "You saw during the pandemic it was taboo to say certain things. You couldn't say that if you had COVID and recovered you'd have some immunity, for instance." "Those kind of taboos are anathema to scientific progress. And in this administration, under Secretary Kennedy's leadership and President Trump's leadership, we are not going to have those taboos. We're going to have free speech in science and free speech in medicine." 💯 Jay Bhattacharya Robert F. Kennedy Jr

Eric Daugherty

43,487 views • 1 year ago

To justify mRNA vaccine mandates, Americans were told the shots would stop infection, block transmission, and end the spread of COVID. None of that was true, and Fauci knew it. Trust collapsed not because Americans became “anti-science,” but because Fauci misled the public, moved the goalposts, and worked with Big Tech to silence dissent. In August 2022, Fauci wrote in his own diary that he pushed the CDC to avoid saying the vaccines were “not effective at all in preventing infection and transmission.” Why? Because it “would undermine the DOJ’s efforts at mandates.” He suppressed the truth to protect the mandates, not the public. Meanwhile, the people chanting “trust the science” were silencing scientists: Dr. Robert W Malone, MD: banned from Twitter. Dr. Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH®: smeared and deplatformed. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya: smeared and shadowbanned. Millions of other Americans were censored, mocked, or branded “conspiracy theorists” for questioning lockdowns, school closures, treatment protocols, natural immunity, or vaccine efficacy. The same Left and media that attacked them still runs cover for Fauci and his agency’s funding of GOF coronavirus research in Wuhan. Science advances through skepticism, open debate, and challenges to established claims. Fauci and the Left's COVID playbook relied on the opposite: captured agencies, Big Tech, and corporate media working together to crush dissent and protect the official narrative. Fauci wanted to become the world’s most famous scientist. Instead, he did more to destroy public trust in science than anyone in our lifetime.
2:18

To justify mRNA vaccine mandates, Americans were told the shots would stop infection, block transmission, and end the spread of COVID. None of that was true, and Fauci knew it. Trust collapsed not because Americans became “anti-science,” but because Fauci misled the public, moved the goalposts, and worked with Big Tech to silence dissent. In August 2022, Fauci wrote in his own diary that he pushed the CDC to avoid saying the vaccines were “not effective at all in preventing infection and transmission.” Why? Because it “would undermine the DOJ’s efforts at mandates.” He suppressed the truth to protect the mandates, not the public. Meanwhile, the people chanting “trust the science” were silencing scientists: Dr. Robert W Malone, MD: banned from Twitter. Dr. Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH®: smeared and deplatformed. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya: smeared and shadowbanned. Millions of other Americans were censored, mocked, or branded “conspiracy theorists” for questioning lockdowns, school closures, treatment protocols, natural immunity, or vaccine efficacy. The same Left and media that attacked them still runs cover for Fauci and his agency’s funding of GOF coronavirus research in Wuhan. Science advances through skepticism, open debate, and challenges to established claims. Fauci and the Left's COVID playbook relied on the opposite: captured agencies, Big Tech, and corporate media working together to crush dissent and protect the official narrative. Fauci wanted to become the world’s most famous scientist. Instead, he did more to destroy public trust in science than anyone in our lifetime.

KanekoaTheGreat

674,924 views • 15 days ago

I made Jay Bhattacharya watch extended footage of Australia's lockdowns to get his expert reaction. It says everything we need to know about his instincts as the new Director of NIH overseeing the Public Health of the USA and by extension, much of the world. Jay: 'It was a propaganda campaign to create an illusion of consensus that didn't actually exist. It was NOT following the science.' 'This is not public health. I think people are going to look back in shame.' 'This is a mass violation of civil rights in the name of Public Health. If Public Health is what we just saw, then Public Health is not worth having.' --------------- The other gentleman with me is retired Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, Professor Ramesh Thakur.
4:55

I made Jay Bhattacharya watch extended footage of Australia's lockdowns to get his expert reaction. It says everything we need to know about his instincts as the new Director of NIH overseeing the Public Health of the USA and by extension, much of the world. Jay: 'It was a propaganda campaign to create an illusion of consensus that didn't actually exist. It was NOT following the science.' 'This is not public health. I think people are going to look back in shame.' 'This is a mass violation of civil rights in the name of Public Health. If Public Health is what we just saw, then Public Health is not worth having.' --------------- The other gentleman with me is retired Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, Professor Ramesh Thakur.

discernable

43,911 views • 1 year ago

🚨MAHA Action President Tony Lyons says President Trump and RFK Jr.’s autism announcement is truly historic. “Donald Trump said that he would empower Secretary Kennedy to take really bold, decisive action… I don’t think you can look at what happened today and think that it was anything short of the boldest and most decisive action that could be taken.” “They also said this is the first of many of these kinds of press conferences… the administration really cares about doing real science.” “They see that the science done for the last 20 or 30 years has been fake corporate science.” “Now we are getting gold standard science, total transparency, and we’re going to make progress.” “There are dozens of possibilities for chronic diseases, and they’re going to do research into every last one of them, and follow the science wherever it leads.” “This is real science, real answers… these are historic changes.”
1:15

🚨MAHA Action President Tony Lyons says President Trump and RFK Jr.’s autism announcement is truly historic. “Donald Trump said that he would empower Secretary Kennedy to take really bold, decisive action… I don’t think you can look at what happened today and think that it was anything short of the boldest and most decisive action that could be taken.” “They also said this is the first of many of these kinds of press conferences… the administration really cares about doing real science.” “They see that the science done for the last 20 or 30 years has been fake corporate science.” “Now we are getting gold standard science, total transparency, and we’re going to make progress.” “There are dozens of possibilities for chronic diseases, and they’re going to do research into every last one of them, and follow the science wherever it leads.” “This is real science, real answers… these are historic changes.”

MAHA Action

50,422 views • 10 months ago

Journal of Health Communication editor-in-chief on the Fauci hearing... "[P]ublic service and public servants should be respected. Everyone who is in that hearing and meeting room. But what's happened is this is an assault on science and scientists. And unfortunately, Dr. Fauci is in that seat. 38 years of service to the country. One of the best -known scientists for infectious disease, unfortunately, has taken a lot of heat for probably a lot of shall we say, issues that were not fully his. He didn't make all the decisions that drove the COVID pandemic. But you are right that he is one of the most respected scientists and should be respected in that same sort of way today. We certainly didn't learn anything from the way the hearing was held."
0:46

Journal of Health Communication editor-in-chief on the Fauci hearing... "[P]ublic service and public servants should be respected. Everyone who is in that hearing and meeting room. But what's happened is this is an assault on science and scientists. And unfortunately, Dr. Fauci is in that seat. 38 years of service to the country. One of the best -known scientists for infectious disease, unfortunately, has taken a lot of heat for probably a lot of shall we say, issues that were not fully his. He didn't make all the decisions that drove the COVID pandemic. But you are right that he is one of the most respected scientists and should be respected in that same sort of way today. We certainly didn't learn anything from the way the hearing was held."

Curtis Houck

35,500 views • 15 days ago

BREAKING IN WASHINGTON: Dr. Fauci tells Congress he had to contradict President Trump on the podium because he felt it was his responsibility to tell the American people the truth, to tell them about what science actually said. He was responding to a leading question by Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz (Jared Moskowitz). WATCH Question: Dr. Fauci, you talked about how we live in partisan times. A lot of misinformation and colleagues on this body said you should be charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one that's happened to is your former boss. But the question I have is when you saw a lot of that disinformation, whether it was we can use a disinfectant to do like a cleaning or do light in the body, or that China is working super hard, President Xi's got it contained. All of this stuff that was being put out, were you concerned? What was your feeling at that time working in the administration, seeing that come from the podium? Answer: Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very clear I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't like of having to contradict publicly the president of the United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it was my responsibility to preserve. Question: He must have thought you did a great job. He gave you a commendation right before he left. Answer: Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know, as to preserve my own personal integrity and my major responsibility to the American public to tell them the truth. And if I could just take this opportunity. When I was saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean that I am science. What I meant was that when the data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work and there are people saying, oh, it does, I'll give it to people, and we know it can be hurtful to them, then when you're attacking what I'm saying, that the science shows it doesn't work and the science shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that you really are attacking science because science has shown that it doesn't work. That's what I meant when you attack me, you're attacking science. Response: Thank you, doctor. Thank you, mister chairman. I yield back, time's expired. Now recognize Mister Jordan from...
1:59

BREAKING IN WASHINGTON: Dr. Fauci tells Congress he had to contradict President Trump on the podium because he felt it was his responsibility to tell the American people the truth, to tell them about what science actually said. He was responding to a leading question by Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz (Jared Moskowitz). WATCH Question: Dr. Fauci, you talked about how we live in partisan times. A lot of misinformation and colleagues on this body said you should be charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one that's happened to is your former boss. But the question I have is when you saw a lot of that disinformation, whether it was we can use a disinfectant to do like a cleaning or do light in the body, or that China is working super hard, President Xi's got it contained. All of this stuff that was being put out, were you concerned? What was your feeling at that time working in the administration, seeing that come from the podium? Answer: Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very clear I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't like of having to contradict publicly the president of the United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it was my responsibility to preserve. Question: He must have thought you did a great job. He gave you a commendation right before he left. Answer: Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know, as to preserve my own personal integrity and my major responsibility to the American public to tell them the truth. And if I could just take this opportunity. When I was saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean that I am science. What I meant was that when the data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work and there are people saying, oh, it does, I'll give it to people, and we know it can be hurtful to them, then when you're attacking what I'm saying, that the science shows it doesn't work and the science shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that you really are attacking science because science has shown that it doesn't work. That's what I meant when you attack me, you're attacking science. Response: Thank you, doctor. Thank you, mister chairman. I yield back, time's expired. Now recognize Mister Jordan from...

Simon Ateba

2,818,632 views • 2 years ago

Ginkgo Bioworks CEO Jason Kelly explains how "cloud-style" automated science labs can create "millions of scientists" by democratizing access to experimentation: “Science is the formalization of human curiosity. The reason everyone doesn't do science today is that you're blocked by the cost and expense of all the physical infrastructure.” “If it was available cloud-style, for example, how many people would want to be doing science? Maybe they have a health condition they want to study themselves, maybe they have a new idea for a material, maybe they're a gardener and they want to make a new plant variety?” “I know that sounds crazy, but I'll tell you something else that sounded crazy. In 1960, if you said random, average people will program computers, that sounded insane.” "The model’s ability to access literature and be smart and tell you how to turn your question into an experiment—and then the autonomous labs that could do that experiment for you in the cloud—means we'll have millions of scientists, just like we have millions of programmers now as we made it easier."
1:38

Ginkgo Bioworks CEO Jason Kelly explains how "cloud-style" automated science labs can create "millions of scientists" by democratizing access to experimentation: “Science is the formalization of human curiosity. The reason everyone doesn't do science today is that you're blocked by the cost and expense of all the physical infrastructure.” “If it was available cloud-style, for example, how many people would want to be doing science? Maybe they have a health condition they want to study themselves, maybe they have a new idea for a material, maybe they're a gardener and they want to make a new plant variety?” “I know that sounds crazy, but I'll tell you something else that sounded crazy. In 1960, if you said random, average people will program computers, that sounded insane.” "The model’s ability to access literature and be smart and tell you how to turn your question into an experiment—and then the autonomous labs that could do that experiment for you in the cloud—means we'll have millions of scientists, just like we have millions of programmers now as we made it easier."

TBPN

13,054 views • 6 months ago

RFK Jr.: "All of those senators are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars, including, in some cases, millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry. So they don't want to hear the answers to the questions that they ask me." "They want to make a little speech and then shut me down. But they can't deny the fact that we did worse than COVID. The CDC is a broken agency." "We did worse than any country in the world. We have 4.2% of the world's population. We have 20% of the world's COVID deaths. We literally are the worst team in the league."" I've been brought in as a new manager, and my job is to shake up the organization to fire the people who were responsible for masking our children with no science, for social distancing orders with no science, or all the other thing, you know, for all of the other things that they try, for closing our schools. At the behest of the teachers union, hurting workers all over America." "These were bad. We literally did worse than any country in the world, and it was because we forgot about the science. And what we're going to do, what the Trump administration is going to do, is to return gold standard science and make this agency the lead agency for public health in the world once again."
1:59

RFK Jr.: "All of those senators are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars, including, in some cases, millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry. So they don't want to hear the answers to the questions that they ask me." "They want to make a little speech and then shut me down. But they can't deny the fact that we did worse than COVID. The CDC is a broken agency." "We did worse than any country in the world. We have 4.2% of the world's population. We have 20% of the world's COVID deaths. We literally are the worst team in the league."" I've been brought in as a new manager, and my job is to shake up the organization to fire the people who were responsible for masking our children with no science, for social distancing orders with no science, or all the other thing, you know, for all of the other things that they try, for closing our schools. At the behest of the teachers union, hurting workers all over America." "These were bad. We literally did worse than any country in the world, and it was because we forgot about the science. And what we're going to do, what the Trump administration is going to do, is to return gold standard science and make this agency the lead agency for public health in the world once again."

Camus

27,280 views • 11 months ago

“Every single NIH employee had to write… a loyalty oath to DEI principles.” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reveals that the woke ideology infected science over the past 20 years. “None of it actually translated over to better health for anybody.” It’s worse than we think. “Over the last 15-20 years, the NIH incorporated into its agenda things I can only characterize as political agendas rather than scientific agendas.” “Probably the most prominent example of this is DEI.” “If you’re a researcher outside the NIH, the ticket to getting extra, relatively easy funds was to promise to do DEI research.” “Much of that research had no real scientific basis at all” and did not translate into better health outcomes for minorities or anyone else. And here’s what worse: “At the end of the year, the NIH would often have some money left over.” “The NIH program officers would go to the people who were doing these projects… and say, ‘look, we have some money left over, if you propose a diversity supplement,’—meaning essentially some DEI add-on that wasn’t actually good science—‘then you can get access to extra money for your research.’” “It was basically wasting taxpayer money that had no chance of improving the health of anybody.” “We’ve gotten rid of all that.” Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD Jay Bhattacharya
3:58

“Every single NIH employee had to write… a loyalty oath to DEI principles.” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reveals that the woke ideology infected science over the past 20 years. “None of it actually translated over to better health for anybody.” It’s worse than we think. “Over the last 15-20 years, the NIH incorporated into its agenda things I can only characterize as political agendas rather than scientific agendas.” “Probably the most prominent example of this is DEI.” “If you’re a researcher outside the NIH, the ticket to getting extra, relatively easy funds was to promise to do DEI research.” “Much of that research had no real scientific basis at all” and did not translate into better health outcomes for minorities or anyone else. And here’s what worse: “At the end of the year, the NIH would often have some money left over.” “The NIH program officers would go to the people who were doing these projects… and say, ‘look, we have some money left over, if you propose a diversity supplement,’—meaning essentially some DEI add-on that wasn’t actually good science—‘then you can get access to extra money for your research.’” “It was basically wasting taxpayer money that had no chance of improving the health of anybody.” “We’ve gotten rid of all that.” Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD Jay Bhattacharya

Jan Jekielek

219,167 views • 6 months ago

Kennedy’s plan landed like a thunderclap and the pushback began almost immediately. Not everyone in the room welcomed Kennedy’s vision. Rep. Diana DeGette zeroed in on concerns that NIH scientists could face retaliation for speaking out. She pressed Kennedy to commit, unequivocally, that no disciplinary action would be taken against those who signed a letter questioning his leadership. “It should be an easy answer because it's illegal,” she said. Kennedy insisted his goal was the opposite, that HHS under his direction would “commit that we are absolutely depoliticizing science at NIH for the first time.” Then he slammed the Biden-era politicization of science across all agencies. This is what he was working to rid. “The Biden administration….Ms. Chairwoman, the Biden administration politicized the science and I just gave you three of thousands of examples of how they did that.” But when asked about the letter directly, he said it was the first he’d heard of it.
0:59

Kennedy’s plan landed like a thunderclap and the pushback began almost immediately. Not everyone in the room welcomed Kennedy’s vision. Rep. Diana DeGette zeroed in on concerns that NIH scientists could face retaliation for speaking out. She pressed Kennedy to commit, unequivocally, that no disciplinary action would be taken against those who signed a letter questioning his leadership. “It should be an easy answer because it's illegal,” she said. Kennedy insisted his goal was the opposite, that HHS under his direction would “commit that we are absolutely depoliticizing science at NIH for the first time.” Then he slammed the Biden-era politicization of science across all agencies. This is what he was working to rid. “The Biden administration….Ms. Chairwoman, the Biden administration politicized the science and I just gave you three of thousands of examples of how they did that.” But when asked about the letter directly, he said it was the first he’d heard of it.

Vigilant Fox 🦊

255,599 views • 1 year ago

You Mark Zuckerberg and Meta interfered with research by stopping the recruitment of my protocols. This SHOULD NOT BE FORGOTTEN. Interference in research affected everyone. I was shadow-banned and censored. I was told I was spreading MISINFORMATION by your fact checkers who NEVER TOUCHED A PATIENT DURING COVID-19. STEP into my lab ProgenaBiome and see the thousands I treated and lost NO ONE. See all the 💩we analyzed. See all the hundreds of conferences I spoke at including being a keynote speaker at American College of Cardiology and a speaker at National Institute of Standards and Technology. See who is on my biome squad from all academic centers. See who co-wrote the book Let's Talk Sh!t. See who is on my papers as co-authors. See who spoke at the Malibu Microbiome meeting. See my testimony in front of Congress. Speak to my clientele in Malibu. Speak to hundreds of Pharma companies I did trials for and see the hundreds of drugs I helped bring to market including recently a celiac sprue drug. Talk to all the VCs who have consulted me at Coleman Research and got my opinion on new drugs. Did I spread misinformation or EARLY INFORMATION? Your company interfered with research and people died. It’s time for corrective actions. Interference with research affects EVERYONE and will affect you one day as well. No one escapes disease. Interference in research kills science and kills hope. This is NOT SOMETHING that will be excused by your words. Science is a story untold. Science NEEDS to be challenged and questioned. There are no right or wrong answers in science. #PROVEMEWRONG IS SCIENCE. Science guides medicine but should NEVER DICTATE MEDICINE. The practice of Medicine takes courage and is very much an art where innovations happen. To discourage that art, those innovations by a narrative pushing the price of a stock is to kill Medicine and hope. NO I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR APOLOGY. Words are lame… ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
0:30

You Mark Zuckerberg and Meta interfered with research by stopping the recruitment of my protocols. This SHOULD NOT BE FORGOTTEN. Interference in research affected everyone. I was shadow-banned and censored. I was told I was spreading MISINFORMATION by your fact checkers who NEVER TOUCHED A PATIENT DURING COVID-19. STEP into my lab ProgenaBiome and see the thousands I treated and lost NO ONE. See all the 💩we analyzed. See all the hundreds of conferences I spoke at including being a keynote speaker at American College of Cardiology and a speaker at National Institute of Standards and Technology. See who is on my biome squad from all academic centers. See who co-wrote the book Let's Talk Sh!t. See who is on my papers as co-authors. See who spoke at the Malibu Microbiome meeting. See my testimony in front of Congress. Speak to my clientele in Malibu. Speak to hundreds of Pharma companies I did trials for and see the hundreds of drugs I helped bring to market including recently a celiac sprue drug. Talk to all the VCs who have consulted me at Coleman Research and got my opinion on new drugs. Did I spread misinformation or EARLY INFORMATION? Your company interfered with research and people died. It’s time for corrective actions. Interference with research affects EVERYONE and will affect you one day as well. No one escapes disease. Interference in research kills science and kills hope. This is NOT SOMETHING that will be excused by your words. Science is a story untold. Science NEEDS to be challenged and questioned. There are no right or wrong answers in science. #PROVEMEWRONG IS SCIENCE. Science guides medicine but should NEVER DICTATE MEDICINE. The practice of Medicine takes courage and is very much an art where innovations happen. To discourage that art, those innovations by a narrative pushing the price of a stock is to kill Medicine and hope. NO I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR APOLOGY. Words are lame… ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

sabine hazan md

58,624 views • 1 year ago

🚨 FLORIDA GOV. RON DESANTIS JUST NOW: "RFK was RIGHT to call out CNN! The legacy media really imbued [Fauci] with a certain amount of informal authority that any EDICT he would issue, that would be put out in every media channel as equating to 'science.'" "Fauci even said it one time, 'I am the science. If you disagree with me, you disagree with science!'" "Science tells you that a family is not able to operate their restaurant? Of course it doesn't! Science tells you that schools should be indefinitely closed for a virus that had very little impact on young healthy children? Of course it didn't say that!" "Science told you that mask mandates would stop COVID? Well, Fauci himself in March of 2020 said the mask wouldn't do it!" "So the diaries, I think, really validate what I saw early on. This is a guy that was drinking his own Kool-Aid!" "He was venerated by the media. I think he liked the fact that he had a lot of this informal power when he was issuing these recommendations and telling governors and mayors to do some of the draconian things that were actually done." "It had a really negative effect on a lot of societies throughout this country." "I would say we don't want a Fauci Florida, a Fauci city or a Fauci state basically was a dystopia where you had businesses reeling, people's liberties curtailed and kids left on the sideline unable to access education."
1:35

🚨 FLORIDA GOV. RON DESANTIS JUST NOW: "RFK was RIGHT to call out CNN! The legacy media really imbued [Fauci] with a certain amount of informal authority that any EDICT he would issue, that would be put out in every media channel as equating to 'science.'" "Fauci even said it one time, 'I am the science. If you disagree with me, you disagree with science!'" "Science tells you that a family is not able to operate their restaurant? Of course it doesn't! Science tells you that schools should be indefinitely closed for a virus that had very little impact on young healthy children? Of course it didn't say that!" "Science told you that mask mandates would stop COVID? Well, Fauci himself in March of 2020 said the mask wouldn't do it!" "So the diaries, I think, really validate what I saw early on. This is a guy that was drinking his own Kool-Aid!" "He was venerated by the media. I think he liked the fact that he had a lot of this informal power when he was issuing these recommendations and telling governors and mayors to do some of the draconian things that were actually done." "It had a really negative effect on a lot of societies throughout this country." "I would say we don't want a Fauci Florida, a Fauci city or a Fauci state basically was a dystopia where you had businesses reeling, people's liberties curtailed and kids left on the sideline unable to access education."

Eric Daugherty

67,262 views • 10 days ago

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.
4:50

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

114,992 views • 1 year ago

.Joe Rogan and Dr Aseem Malhotra discuss prescriptions as the third leading cause of death, pharmaceutical companies' control of clinical trial data, and a study by Stanford Prof. John Ioannidis showing that financial interests compromise scientific research accuracy. "If you think of the business model of the drug industry, it is to get as many people taking as many drugs as possible for as long as possible... The third most common cause of death now globally, after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. "John Abramson explained to me how peer review is done on trials coming straight from pharmaceutical drug companies. You don't really get access to the data itself. You get access to the pharmaceutical companies' analysis of the data. That sounds insane. That sounds so obviously compromised." "He [Prof. John Ioannidis] is the most cited medical researcher in the world. He's considered a medical genius with very high scientific integrity... He wrote a paper on why most published science is false, and one of the things he writes in there with his own mathematical modeling of the reliability of research says, 'the greater the financial interest in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.'
3:26

.Joe Rogan and Dr Aseem Malhotra discuss prescriptions as the third leading cause of death, pharmaceutical companies' control of clinical trial data, and a study by Stanford Prof. John Ioannidis showing that financial interests compromise scientific research accuracy. "If you think of the business model of the drug industry, it is to get as many people taking as many drugs as possible for as long as possible... The third most common cause of death now globally, after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. "John Abramson explained to me how peer review is done on trials coming straight from pharmaceutical drug companies. You don't really get access to the data itself. You get access to the pharmaceutical companies' analysis of the data. That sounds insane. That sounds so obviously compromised." "He [Prof. John Ioannidis] is the most cited medical researcher in the world. He's considered a medical genius with very high scientific integrity... He wrote a paper on why most published science is false, and one of the things he writes in there with his own mathematical modeling of the reliability of research says, 'the greater the financial interest in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.'

KanekoaTheGreat

862,049 views • 3 years ago

BREAKING: Rep. Eric Swalwell pleads to Pam Bondi to look into a laundry list of threats he says are spurred by the words of President Trump: "We have a bingo card at home that my kids have made of what will come next. I expected that the President would come after his enemies, but what I want to talk to you next is serious, and I did not expect this would happen, and I'd like your help on it." "The President has inspired death threats against me and many sitting up here with me." "The President can come after me. It's fine. I'm in the arena. So are these folks. But we never expected that the Department of Justice would not seek to prosecute and investigate those who are making threats against us, and that would include those on that side of the aisle, and I'm just asking for your help to protect life because life is at risk with the environment we're in right now."
4:44

BREAKING: Rep. Eric Swalwell pleads to Pam Bondi to look into a laundry list of threats he says are spurred by the words of President Trump: "We have a bingo card at home that my kids have made of what will come next. I expected that the President would come after his enemies, but what I want to talk to you next is serious, and I did not expect this would happen, and I'd like your help on it." "The President has inspired death threats against me and many sitting up here with me." "The President can come after me. It's fine. I'm in the arena. So are these folks. But we never expected that the Department of Justice would not seek to prosecute and investigate those who are making threats against us, and that would include those on that side of the aisle, and I'm just asking for your help to protect life because life is at risk with the environment we're in right now."

E X X ➠A L E R T S

85,324 views • 6 months ago