Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

~ This time I will talk about “Cherry Picking Science”, with my guest Robert Nasi Robert Nasi Director of Science at CIFOR-ICRAF ~ Over my long career in sustainability, I have rarely seen scientific insights on climate change fully integrated into corporate strategies. Remember, that corporations are basically, governments,...

AidaGreenbury's profile picture

Aida Greenbury

19,587 subscribers

15,846 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & TechnologyNews & PoliticsEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

HISTORIC: President Trump just signed an executive order to codify gold-standard science into U.S. government policy This is a massive win for the MAHA movement—and a crushing blow to Fauci-era mandates and the climate alarmist junk science that’s shaped national policy for decades. From the Oval Office, White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf read the order aloud: “This executive order is entitled ‘Restoring Gold-Standard Science.’” “One of the issues we’ve had in recent decades is that government policy has been made on the back of junk science—scientific studies and findings that included conflicts of interest or scientific misconduct.” The order does one thing clearly: put truth back at the center of policymaking. “The purpose of this executive order is to re-center policymaking around gold-standard science—scientific efforts that follow appropriate methods and don’t include conflicts of interest.” And it forces transparency across the board: “To ensure that when departments and agencies rely on scientific studies, to promulgate rules, to promulgate regulations, that the science that they’re relying on is highly reliable and available to the public.” The days of captured science are over.
1:08

HISTORIC: President Trump just signed an executive order to codify gold-standard science into U.S. government policy This is a massive win for the MAHA movement—and a crushing blow to Fauci-era mandates and the climate alarmist junk science that’s shaped national policy for decades. From the Oval Office, White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf read the order aloud: “This executive order is entitled ‘Restoring Gold-Standard Science.’” “One of the issues we’ve had in recent decades is that government policy has been made on the back of junk science—scientific studies and findings that included conflicts of interest or scientific misconduct.” The order does one thing clearly: put truth back at the center of policymaking. “The purpose of this executive order is to re-center policymaking around gold-standard science—scientific efforts that follow appropriate methods and don’t include conflicts of interest.” And it forces transparency across the board: “To ensure that when departments and agencies rely on scientific studies, to promulgate rules, to promulgate regulations, that the science that they’re relying on is highly reliable and available to the public.” The days of captured science are over.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

315,474 views • 1 year ago

We like to think of science as objective, open to challenge, and committed to the truth. But what happens when scientists fall in love with their own ideas? I spoke to Joe Rogan about how that played out in #nutrition science. Researchers like Ancel Keys and Mark Hegsted became so committed to the diet-heart hypothesis that they stopped questioning it. They cherry-picked data, dismissed contradictory findings, and suppressed opposing views. I spent nine years investigating this story, and the deeper I looked, the clearer it became: science didn’t fail because the evidence was lacking. It failed because belief got in the way. When a scientific field stops self-correcting, the public pays the price.
1:40

We like to think of science as objective, open to challenge, and committed to the truth. But what happens when scientists fall in love with their own ideas? I spoke to Joe Rogan about how that played out in #nutrition science. Researchers like Ancel Keys and Mark Hegsted became so committed to the diet-heart hypothesis that they stopped questioning it. They cherry-picked data, dismissed contradictory findings, and suppressed opposing views. I spent nine years investigating this story, and the deeper I looked, the clearer it became: science didn’t fail because the evidence was lacking. It failed because belief got in the way. When a scientific field stops self-correcting, the public pays the price.

Nina Teicholz, PhD

23,539 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

🚨 Ex-Climate Scientist sounds the ALARM on Climate Industry!!! : “In REAL science, you have a theory, you test it, and if the test fails you know your theory is wrong!…” Alas, Climate scientists have decided this FUNDAMENTAL principle of scientific inquiry does not apply to THEM! Imagine if a doctor prescribed a medicine that killed its patients, or an engineer designed a bridge that fell down - the press would be ALL over it! Not in climate science… I smell a rat… Watch the full video at:
1:14

🚨 Ex-Climate Scientist sounds the ALARM on Climate Industry!!! : “In REAL science, you have a theory, you test it, and if the test fails you know your theory is wrong!…” Alas, Climate scientists have decided this FUNDAMENTAL principle of scientific inquiry does not apply to THEM! Imagine if a doctor prescribed a medicine that killed its patients, or an engineer designed a bridge that fell down - the press would be ALL over it! Not in climate science… I smell a rat… Watch the full video at:

Anika

88,035 views • 13 days ago

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.
2:45

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

31,662 views • 4 months 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

Dr. Joel Gator Warsh is blowing the whistle — saying the science is far from settled on vaccines and autism. “There is nothing that has shocked me more in my entire life than looking into the autism research myself.” “When I went through training, we were told vaccines do not cause autism.” “They said, ‘The science is settled. We have tons of great research to prove it.’” “But when I looked into the research myself, that was not true.” “You don’t think to question it when you’re in training or when you hear it on the media — ‘The science is settled, it’s been debunked.’” “And it’s like why would people be lying to you?” “When you start to read other books and look at the research yourself, you realize that we haven’t studied this question almost at all.” “Not one study exists comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and autism.” “We haven’t done a prospective trial.” “We haven’t looked at all the ingredients.” “To say it’s been debunked or the science is settled is ridiculous.” “It’s so far from that.”
1:38

Dr. Joel Gator Warsh is blowing the whistle — saying the science is far from settled on vaccines and autism. “There is nothing that has shocked me more in my entire life than looking into the autism research myself.” “When I went through training, we were told vaccines do not cause autism.” “They said, ‘The science is settled. We have tons of great research to prove it.’” “But when I looked into the research myself, that was not true.” “You don’t think to question it when you’re in training or when you hear it on the media — ‘The science is settled, it’s been debunked.’” “And it’s like why would people be lying to you?” “When you start to read other books and look at the research yourself, you realize that we haven’t studied this question almost at all.” “Not one study exists comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and autism.” “We haven’t done a prospective trial.” “We haven’t looked at all the ingredients.” “To say it’s been debunked or the science is settled is ridiculous.” “It’s so far from that.”

Children’s Health Defense

27,116 views • 10 months ago

Joe Rogan and Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas get into a serious conversation about Fauci and “The Science.” ROGAN: "One of the things that was really weird about the whole COVID pandemic was that we weren't supposed to question science… when Fauci said if you question Anthony Fauci, you are questioning science." SRINIVAS: "That's because they try to assign credibility through their degrees, through their affiliations... but not through the scientific method. Anybody should be allowed to ask questions, as long as they are open to new evidence. And that's the most important quality of a scientist." ROGAN: "There was an actual government push to silence questioning, and legitimate researchers were kicked off of Twitter because they didn't back the narrative. This is all anti-science." SRINIVAS: "Curbing that is almost like a way of saying, 'Look, I'm going to tell you what happened. You need to believe in my worldview, and I'm not open to new perspectives.'" Science demands questioning. The moment someone tells you not to, they've stopped doing science.
1:22

Joe Rogan and Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas get into a serious conversation about Fauci and “The Science.” ROGAN: "One of the things that was really weird about the whole COVID pandemic was that we weren't supposed to question science… when Fauci said if you question Anthony Fauci, you are questioning science." SRINIVAS: "That's because they try to assign credibility through their degrees, through their affiliations... but not through the scientific method. Anybody should be allowed to ask questions, as long as they are open to new evidence. And that's the most important quality of a scientist." ROGAN: "There was an actual government push to silence questioning, and legitimate researchers were kicked off of Twitter because they didn't back the narrative. This is all anti-science." SRINIVAS: "Curbing that is almost like a way of saying, 'Look, I'm going to tell you what happened. You need to believe in my worldview, and I'm not open to new perspectives.'" Science demands questioning. The moment someone tells you not to, they've stopped doing science.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

194,602 views • 1 month ago

Eric Weinstein on Elon Musk: “His real company I think isn’t SpaceX, it’s xAI (Grok). I think he’s given up on the corruption of science. He keeps talking about the fact that he doesn’t like the term ‘researcher’ — he only believes in Engineers. I don’t think he doesn’t believe in scientists, I think he thinks science has gotten corrupt and he doesn’t want to deal with it. I think what he is doing is building Grok to do science in a world where humans are too corrupt to be truthful.” Interesting take. (Via Ranveer Allahbadia Podcast)
1:50

Eric Weinstein on Elon Musk: “His real company I think isn’t SpaceX, it’s xAI (Grok). I think he’s given up on the corruption of science. He keeps talking about the fact that he doesn’t like the term ‘researcher’ — he only believes in Engineers. I don’t think he doesn’t believe in scientists, I think he thinks science has gotten corrupt and he doesn’t want to deal with it. I think what he is doing is building Grok to do science in a world where humans are too corrupt to be truthful.” Interesting take. (Via Ranveer Allahbadia Podcast)

Nic Cruz Patane

794,029 views • 5 months 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

They want you to stop trusting scientists, and trust only them. But then they turn around and use research and data collected by those very same scientists to support their claims. Then they cherry-pick the findings and overstate the conclusions far beyond what the evidence actually shows. And when the scientific community pushes back, they say you can’t trust them—even though the entire narrative they’re pushing is built on their work. Hard to tell. Is it nearly the entire scientific community misleading people and politicizing science? Or is it the politicians who promised to find a “cause” of a complex neurodevelopmental condition by a set date and need to say something to fit their political narrative? And if you think most of us speaking out right now wouldn’t be saying the exact same thing if this kind of anti-science rhetoric were coming from a Democratic administration, then you’re the one letting politics cloud your judgment. Because this isn’t about left versus right. It’s about science versus pseudoscience. - Dr. Jessica Knurick
2:54

They want you to stop trusting scientists, and trust only them. But then they turn around and use research and data collected by those very same scientists to support their claims. Then they cherry-pick the findings and overstate the conclusions far beyond what the evidence actually shows. And when the scientific community pushes back, they say you can’t trust them—even though the entire narrative they’re pushing is built on their work. Hard to tell. Is it nearly the entire scientific community misleading people and politicizing science? Or is it the politicians who promised to find a “cause” of a complex neurodevelopmental condition by a set date and need to say something to fit their political narrative? And if you think most of us speaking out right now wouldn’t be saying the exact same thing if this kind of anti-science rhetoric were coming from a Democratic administration, then you’re the one letting politics cloud your judgment. Because this isn’t about left versus right. It’s about science versus pseudoscience. - Dr. Jessica Knurick

Dr. Jonathan N. Stea

26,177 views • 10 months ago

Time to tell the truth about the real science. The science behind “climate change” is false. As I point out in this speech the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is incredibly small and is quickly lost via convection (the wind) through the force of gravity. The idea that one CO2 molecule can heat up 10,000 N2 and O2 molecules by 1 degree and then maintain that increase in temperature is false. Assuming equal molecule weights that would require that the CO2 molecule is 10,000 degrees in order to confirm with Newton’s third law of motion or the 1st law of thermodynamics. This is clearly impossible. The temperature of the Sun is 5,700 degrees and the heat inside an internal combustion engine of a space ship is 3,000 degrees. Furthermore gases are terrible conductors of heat so it’s very difficult for gas to transfer heat to other molecules. This science of physics and in particular thermodynamics isn’t being taught in schools. It is allowing the climate alarmists to spread their false narrative about climate change which is being used to waste tens of billions of dollars on renewables which in itself is destroying our environment. Only People First has the technical understanding of the true science of heat - thermodynamics- to destroy the climate debate once and for all.
15:13

Time to tell the truth about the real science. The science behind “climate change” is false. As I point out in this speech the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is incredibly small and is quickly lost via convection (the wind) through the force of gravity. The idea that one CO2 molecule can heat up 10,000 N2 and O2 molecules by 1 degree and then maintain that increase in temperature is false. Assuming equal molecule weights that would require that the CO2 molecule is 10,000 degrees in order to confirm with Newton’s third law of motion or the 1st law of thermodynamics. This is clearly impossible. The temperature of the Sun is 5,700 degrees and the heat inside an internal combustion engine of a space ship is 3,000 degrees. Furthermore gases are terrible conductors of heat so it’s very difficult for gas to transfer heat to other molecules. This science of physics and in particular thermodynamics isn’t being taught in schools. It is allowing the climate alarmists to spread their false narrative about climate change which is being used to waste tens of billions of dollars on renewables which in itself is destroying our environment. Only People First has the technical understanding of the true science of heat - thermodynamics- to destroy the climate debate once and for all.

Senator Gerard Rennick

89,361 views • 1 year ago

🚨 WOAH: Senator Mullin RIPS INTO Democrat Colleagues for being "Anti-Science" During Second RFK Jr. Hearing "I DON'T GET IT, GUYS! AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO QUESTION SCIENCE?" "If he were Biden's pick, you'd LOVE that he's questioning the science! You would probably support his positions 100%, but because he's now on the Republican side, you guys are like, "Wait, how dare he question science." My God, if we didn't question science, where would we be today? We've always questioned science. I mean, what word we did today if we didn't ever question science? But I will say there's an issue that I have as a father of six that when my kids come out from getting their vaccines, they look like a freaking pincushion. I mean 72 vaccinations, I think there's a reason we should be questioning this. Who wouldn't want to look at everything? I don't get it guys. I don't understand your point other than the fact you just oppose him because he supports a president that you guys don't like now. I applaud him for going into the situation and saying, "Let's question something." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, and expecting different results. Is it not true, that you're supposed to question science? Is anybody going to question the fact that that's not true?" 👏
1:58

🚨 WOAH: Senator Mullin RIPS INTO Democrat Colleagues for being "Anti-Science" During Second RFK Jr. Hearing "I DON'T GET IT, GUYS! AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO QUESTION SCIENCE?" "If he were Biden's pick, you'd LOVE that he's questioning the science! You would probably support his positions 100%, but because he's now on the Republican side, you guys are like, "Wait, how dare he question science." My God, if we didn't question science, where would we be today? We've always questioned science. I mean, what word we did today if we didn't ever question science? But I will say there's an issue that I have as a father of six that when my kids come out from getting their vaccines, they look like a freaking pincushion. I mean 72 vaccinations, I think there's a reason we should be questioning this. Who wouldn't want to look at everything? I don't get it guys. I don't understand your point other than the fact you just oppose him because he supports a president that you guys don't like now. I applaud him for going into the situation and saying, "Let's question something." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, and expecting different results. Is it not true, that you're supposed to question science? Is anybody going to question the fact that that's not true?" 👏

Lauren Lee

66,334 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

RFK Jr: “Trusting the experts is a feature of religion and totalitarian systems, not of democracy or science” “The biggest group of scientists right now in this country is working for the processed food industry. They’re designing foods that are designed to not fill you up, to leave you hungry. They’re designed to contain ingredients that are addictive, that drive you to get more and more, more sugar, more salt, or a lot of these artificial, synthetic chemicals. The whole thing is a lie. You’re not eating food, you’re eating… chemicals. The system has been utterly corrupted. We were all told during Covid to trust the experts, but that’s not a thing. Trusting the experts is not a feature of science, it’s the opposite of science.” If we’re gonna be a science-based country with science-based policies, which we pride ourselves on, if we’re gonna have a democracy, then we need to question everything.” From Robert Breedlove
2:57

RFK Jr: “Trusting the experts is a feature of religion and totalitarian systems, not of democracy or science” “The biggest group of scientists right now in this country is working for the processed food industry. They’re designing foods that are designed to not fill you up, to leave you hungry. They’re designed to contain ingredients that are addictive, that drive you to get more and more, more sugar, more salt, or a lot of these artificial, synthetic chemicals. The whole thing is a lie. You’re not eating food, you’re eating… chemicals. The system has been utterly corrupted. We were all told during Covid to trust the experts, but that’s not a thing. Trusting the experts is not a feature of science, it’s the opposite of science.” If we’re gonna be a science-based country with science-based policies, which we pride ourselves on, if we’re gonna have a democracy, then we need to question everything.” From Robert Breedlove

Holden Culotta

195,767 views • 2 years ago

Sanjay "John" (Mr. NOT-Science)comes back to talk to us about the 100% kill rate on the transcripted mice and the bs around disease X. He talks to us about genes and the phoney work that they keep trying to push on us about their science. It's seems like science is supposed to be the new religion to me. He also breaks down some of the other paradigms I have around GMOs and the stories that we are so used to hearing. I am not convinced about his theories, but it sure is interesting and important to keep questioning things in 2024. We now know that we have been lied to about a myriad of things for most of our lives, so nothing should be sacred. Everything must be questioned if we are going to eventually get to the truth! X: Web:
1:07:54

Sanjay "John" (Mr. NOT-Science)comes back to talk to us about the 100% kill rate on the transcripted mice and the bs around disease X. He talks to us about genes and the phoney work that they keep trying to push on us about their science. It's seems like science is supposed to be the new religion to me. He also breaks down some of the other paradigms I have around GMOs and the stories that we are so used to hearing. I am not convinced about his theories, but it sure is interesting and important to keep questioning things in 2024. We now know that we have been lied to about a myriad of things for most of our lives, so nothing should be sacred. Everything must be questioned if we are going to eventually get to the truth! X: Web:

unscrew the news

62,493 views • 2 years ago