This week's Arrow offers my riffs on a Protein Power backstory, Tesla's Achilles Heel, Big Tech Censorship, Vaccines and Autism, Titanic Conspiracies, and Academic Hookwinking. The Arrow is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Just wonderful. I loved seeing that soaked sheet. Also, thank you so much for your explanation on Wakefield. I had no idea, though I don't look at that area at all.
When I hear stories like the Brokaw bit, I think about how many people who were watching were harmed. It's really horrible.
I was pissed off about the Brokaw segment for a week. So much so that I contacted by big time lawyer (who was later appointed as a federal judge) and asked him if I had any chance of suing over the trashing of our book. He told no. He said that every word that is said on those shows is scripted and the script is run by a team of lawyers before it ever hits the air. When I thought about what Brokaw said, I realized he didn't say anything that wasn't true. We were recommending red meat, cheese, and eggs. It was his look of disgust and casually flipping the book away as if he were tossing it in the garbage that conveyed the message.
Being able to read and study your two articles, "A New Hypothesis of Obesity" and "Are Nuts Paleo?" really helped me understand them. I'd watched the video a few times, along with your Insulin one from the Ancestral Health Symposium, but being able to study what you're saying on paper and highlight and annotate it made all the difference.
I stopped eating my beloved dry-roasted, salted Brazil nuts in the morning because...well, holy crap...that walnuts example! And the great bit of trickery you unwrapped. Brazil nuts are not far behind.
Also, a comment on the New Hypothesis article. That traffic jam analogy was just wonderful, because it's right on as an example and because it's funny. Now, when you talk about reverse electron transport, I see a car in a chase movie making a U-ey to get out of a traffic jam before the cops get to it.
Also, I just heard Michael Rose talking about longevity and aging plateaus - and how to plateau sooner - at the Human Behavior & Evolution Society conference. We hung out, along with Brett Smith (Ancestral Health symposium organizer from 2016, knows or "knows" and respects you).
Rose is a great guy and just retired from UC Irvine and is up there in SB. Now that I see you and MD are back and...hah hah...working out with your shredder!...I'd love to introduce you, because your current work and thinking and his really, really go together and are going into the second bookmonster that grew out of the first in a chapter on how to eat.
Michael Rose is in Santa Barbara?!?! I did not know that. I would love an introduction. I'm working my way through his papers now. Just finished his first book "The Long Tomorrow."
There is an argument for all RCTs to have an expiration date. Other therapies and the environment change over time. I wonder if there can be an argument made for childhood vaccines to undergo another (or first) placebo controlled trial. I'm sure many will say that's unethical. But I wonder if there is enough equipoise in today's environment to consider it.
Weather may not be natural anymore. It may all be modified by geoengineering. And wildfires may be seen by some as desirable sources of solar-masking smoke, like volcanic eruptions. The forests are first compromised by aerial spraying of aluminum sulfide nanoparticles, a root toxin and stomata blocking desiccant. A desiccated-forest fire creates the ultimate inferno.
I can be as skeptical as anyone when it comes to consensus science. The whole “science” of human beings & carbon emissions as the primary driver of global warming currently resembles religious belief more than science. Having said that, I was taken aback by your comment that the idea that viruses don’t exist “could be true”. I understand you don’t personally believe it, and the examples you give demonstrate why. However your standard should be higher than “it could be true”. The fact is that it is categorically true that viruses exist. . How would a jury ever determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if the default position is - well it could be true. Juries have correctly sentenced criminals to death on far, far less evidence than the evidence which proves viruses exist. And those experts who believe viruses don’t exist? How many of those do think would visit & work in a level 5 containment lab at CDC or military facility WITHOUT a hazmat suit. I am certain the answer is none. And it can’t be true that anyone of them would. They never have.
RFK Jr is a conspiracy kook and his take on the assassination is so full of holes they are almost too numerous to count.
I said "it could be true" in the sense that pretty much anything you hear can be true. I don't believe it, though. And I don't have time to go through all the literature I've been sent on why viruses don't exist.
As to the RFK thing... As I said. I have no idea if it's true or not. I've never read much about it. It's easy to call someone a conspiracy cook and say their opinion is full of holes. How about an explanation of why. I would love to know.
We can agree to disagree; especially “pretty much anything you hear can be true” No it can’t. I have heard the earth is flat, moon landing never happened, viruses don’t exist etc etc. Every day a jury hears a defense attorney say his client is innocent. A jury can’t conclude “ it could be true” otherwise no one would be convicted. As for RFK Jr - here is a just a brief sample of holes in his nonsensical narrative. https://colganwrites.com/rfk-jr-defends-his-fathers-murderer
I didn't say everything, I said "pretty much everything...." I agree there are certainties. But I've never seen a virus. I've never tried to look for one. I've heard of them all my life. I've learned about them in medical school. I've seen videos from space, so I know the earth isn't flat. Unless the videos are fake, which I highly doubt. If there were a huge literature written by credentialed people saying they were faked, I might wonder. It's the same with the 'viruses don't exist' literature. It's not just a bunch of nobodies...some highly credentialed people are saying it. My entire education goes against the idea, but I actually don't know for absolute certain that there are viruses. But my probabilistic bet is that there are and they are as described. I'm so convinced of it that I'm not going to spend time with the 'viruses don't exist' literature to try to figure out where virus deniers are coming from intellectually. As to the RFK deal, I have no idea. But I suspect RFK has looked into it vastly more deeply than Colgan has. Does that make him (RFK) correct? No. But it doesn't make me want to simply disregard his opinion just because some journalist (who, for all I know has been paid by the CIA) says RFK is wrong. I don't know the real truth re RFK, Sr's death, and I don't have that much interest in it to spend a ton of time trying to sort it all out.
The last thing I wanted to do is drag this out - but my goodness. Conspiracy crazy - the journalist may or may not have been paid by the CIA? Jesus wept. How off the rails is that assertion, made of course, without a SHRED of evidence. This journalist simply repeated facts - witness statements, polygraph test etc. Somehow these facts were conveniently ignored or not addressed by Jr. Why? But u seem fairly comfortable with this connected class Kennedy accusing the not connected, minimum wage security guard of conspiracy to commit murder.
You haven’t seen a virus - so they may or may not exist? Tell me good doctor - have you ever seen gravity? I am hoping you aren’t going to walk off a ledge anytime soon because of your failure to observe that. And once again, can you name any of these “highly credentialed” people who have ever ventured into a level 5 virus lab without a hazmat suit. None have, for the very reason you aren’t testing the gravity you have never seen by walking off a ledge.
And here’s a Kennedy - the very definition of elite class, connected class, privileged class etc etc - trashing a minimum wage security guard, accusing him of murder - without a shred of evidence. And many accept this, done without any thought for this poor guy. Done without any consequences to this privileged conspiracy KOOK.
As for who blew up the dam...it makes sense to me that the Russians did it. According to Ihor Syrota, the director general of the Ukrainian hydroelectric power company Ukrhydroenergo, the plant was designed to withstand a nuclear strike “To destroy the plant from the outside, at least three aircraft bombs, each of 500kg, would have had to be dropped on the same spot. The station was blown up from the inside.”
He added: “They brought hundreds of kilograms of explosives there. Ukraine reported last year that the station was mined. The Russians were just waiting for the right time to blow it up. And they did it during the new Ukrainian offensive in an attempt to deter them and slow them down.
Russian forces had control of the hydroelectric infrastructure on top of the dam and were using it as a garrison at the time of the blast. Explosive experts have said it would be much easier to blow up the dam from within than by firing on it from a distance.
It's just common sense that the Russians blew it up as opposed to the Ukrainians doing it.
CAUSALITY Your sections on this beg for more. For example, a big U. of Calgary/Exeter study https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9l_F2HX-DZE estimates a 40% less risk for dementia with vitamin D supplementation. Is that not de facto causality? How could it ever be excluded- or like most D science - ignored??
It hasn't been ignored. I've seen it in at least four physician newsletters I subscribe to and at least as many press accounts. The woman in the video says "vitamin D is associated with..." Which is another word for an observational study. Such studies are not conclusive, and she says so. She is correct. If you haven't read it, take a look at this essay I wrote a few years back on observational studies: https://www.proteinpower.com/observational-studies-2/ I wrote this post because I was getting so many inquiries about the latest observational study that popped up in the press. What it takes to show causality is a randomized controlled trial. Even those have to be replicated before anyone can say with decent probability that a specific dose of vitamin D prevents cognitive decline.
I consider that study to be an ideational vaccine. Given that the paper identifies a risk of 40% for dementia 'associated' with D insufficiency, I do get the idea - get some D. With sugar I realize I should do without it. These mental vaccinations' only side effect tends to be health? A way to survive in a milieu of collapsing medical authorities, yet rising AI that supplants authority with AGI as a lifetime resource?
I listened to a podcast a few months ago with author John Hamer who wrote "RMS Olympic" about the alleged true story behind the Titanic. I have not read his book but he sounded credible. Here is a synopsis from the Amazon page:
“The Titanic didn’t sink! The ship that went down in the North Atlantic in 1912 was the Olympic, the Titanic’s sister ship. That’s the intriguing hypothesis of this mix of conjecture and facts that points to what could be the greatest hoax of the century. Both ships were owned by the White Star Line, which was part of J.P. Morgan’s investment empire. The company had reason and opportunity to switch the identities of these luxury liners in order to commit massive insurance fraud. Although the Olympic was a new ship, she had become severely damaged by a series of accidents, which made her unseaworthy and uninsurable. In this book, John Hamer theorizes that, instead of selling her for scrap and taking a huge loss, which might have bankrupted the Morgan venture, the decision was made to switch identities, destroy the Olympic (now posing as the Titanic), collect the insurance, and continue operating the Titanic profitably (now posing as the Olympic). You’ll be amazed at how much compelling evidence there is to support this conclusion.”
That's basically what the video I posted says. Sounds plausible and all, but one would think that after 111 years the truth would have finally come out. In general. Not just in a single book or video.
Between this post and this week's Quiver, I'm all set with reading - and watching - for the weekend; thanks for so many interesting things to think about.
Just a few typos - all of which I missed when I read the post last night.
Given its staring figure of 306 miles
. . . its starting figure . . .
the government had it’s tentacles in
the government had its tentacles in (I"m sure autocorrect "fixed" that one)
about the governments involvement
the government's involvement
I receive an email from a reader telling me the ship in the video is probably not the Titanic
I received an email . . . ? (And I must say I've gotta watch this one - I was working at Woods Hole when Ballard found the Titanic - can't imagine the conspiracy theory surrounding this.)
Just wonderful. I loved seeing that soaked sheet. Also, thank you so much for your explanation on Wakefield. I had no idea, though I don't look at that area at all.
When I hear stories like the Brokaw bit, I think about how many people who were watching were harmed. It's really horrible.
Thanks for all you and MD do.
I was pissed off about the Brokaw segment for a week. So much so that I contacted by big time lawyer (who was later appointed as a federal judge) and asked him if I had any chance of suing over the trashing of our book. He told no. He said that every word that is said on those shows is scripted and the script is run by a team of lawyers before it ever hits the air. When I thought about what Brokaw said, I realized he didn't say anything that wasn't true. We were recommending red meat, cheese, and eggs. It was his look of disgust and casually flipping the book away as if he were tossing it in the garbage that conveyed the message.
Being able to read and study your two articles, "A New Hypothesis of Obesity" and "Are Nuts Paleo?" really helped me understand them. I'd watched the video a few times, along with your Insulin one from the Ancestral Health Symposium, but being able to study what you're saying on paper and highlight and annotate it made all the difference.
I stopped eating my beloved dry-roasted, salted Brazil nuts in the morning because...well, holy crap...that walnuts example! And the great bit of trickery you unwrapped. Brazil nuts are not far behind.
Also, a comment on the New Hypothesis article. That traffic jam analogy was just wonderful, because it's right on as an example and because it's funny. Now, when you talk about reverse electron transport, I see a car in a chase movie making a U-ey to get out of a traffic jam before the cops get to it.
Also, I just heard Michael Rose talking about longevity and aging plateaus - and how to plateau sooner - at the Human Behavior & Evolution Society conference. We hung out, along with Brett Smith (Ancestral Health symposium organizer from 2016, knows or "knows" and respects you).
Rose is a great guy and just retired from UC Irvine and is up there in SB. Now that I see you and MD are back and...hah hah...working out with your shredder!...I'd love to introduce you, because your current work and thinking and his really, really go together and are going into the second bookmonster that grew out of the first in a chapter on how to eat.
Thanks again for all you do. You and MD!
Michael Rose is in Santa Barbara?!?! I did not know that. I would love an introduction. I'm working my way through his papers now. Just finished his first book "The Long Tomorrow."
There is an argument for all RCTs to have an expiration date. Other therapies and the environment change over time. I wonder if there can be an argument made for childhood vaccines to undergo another (or first) placebo controlled trial. I'm sure many will say that's unethical. But I wonder if there is enough equipoise in today's environment to consider it.
Crackingly good Arrow this week Mike. Plenty to ponder on.
That sheet of paper will be in the Smithsonian someday, great that you found it!
Weather may not be natural anymore. It may all be modified by geoengineering. And wildfires may be seen by some as desirable sources of solar-masking smoke, like volcanic eruptions. The forests are first compromised by aerial spraying of aluminum sulfide nanoparticles, a root toxin and stomata blocking desiccant. A desiccated-forest fire creates the ultimate inferno.
I can be as skeptical as anyone when it comes to consensus science. The whole “science” of human beings & carbon emissions as the primary driver of global warming currently resembles religious belief more than science. Having said that, I was taken aback by your comment that the idea that viruses don’t exist “could be true”. I understand you don’t personally believe it, and the examples you give demonstrate why. However your standard should be higher than “it could be true”. The fact is that it is categorically true that viruses exist. . How would a jury ever determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if the default position is - well it could be true. Juries have correctly sentenced criminals to death on far, far less evidence than the evidence which proves viruses exist. And those experts who believe viruses don’t exist? How many of those do think would visit & work in a level 5 containment lab at CDC or military facility WITHOUT a hazmat suit. I am certain the answer is none. And it can’t be true that anyone of them would. They never have.
RFK Jr is a conspiracy kook and his take on the assassination is so full of holes they are almost too numerous to count.
I said "it could be true" in the sense that pretty much anything you hear can be true. I don't believe it, though. And I don't have time to go through all the literature I've been sent on why viruses don't exist.
As to the RFK thing... As I said. I have no idea if it's true or not. I've never read much about it. It's easy to call someone a conspiracy cook and say their opinion is full of holes. How about an explanation of why. I would love to know.
We can agree to disagree; especially “pretty much anything you hear can be true” No it can’t. I have heard the earth is flat, moon landing never happened, viruses don’t exist etc etc. Every day a jury hears a defense attorney say his client is innocent. A jury can’t conclude “ it could be true” otherwise no one would be convicted. As for RFK Jr - here is a just a brief sample of holes in his nonsensical narrative. https://colganwrites.com/rfk-jr-defends-his-fathers-murderer
I didn't say everything, I said "pretty much everything...." I agree there are certainties. But I've never seen a virus. I've never tried to look for one. I've heard of them all my life. I've learned about them in medical school. I've seen videos from space, so I know the earth isn't flat. Unless the videos are fake, which I highly doubt. If there were a huge literature written by credentialed people saying they were faked, I might wonder. It's the same with the 'viruses don't exist' literature. It's not just a bunch of nobodies...some highly credentialed people are saying it. My entire education goes against the idea, but I actually don't know for absolute certain that there are viruses. But my probabilistic bet is that there are and they are as described. I'm so convinced of it that I'm not going to spend time with the 'viruses don't exist' literature to try to figure out where virus deniers are coming from intellectually. As to the RFK deal, I have no idea. But I suspect RFK has looked into it vastly more deeply than Colgan has. Does that make him (RFK) correct? No. But it doesn't make me want to simply disregard his opinion just because some journalist (who, for all I know has been paid by the CIA) says RFK is wrong. I don't know the real truth re RFK, Sr's death, and I don't have that much interest in it to spend a ton of time trying to sort it all out.
The last thing I wanted to do is drag this out - but my goodness. Conspiracy crazy - the journalist may or may not have been paid by the CIA? Jesus wept. How off the rails is that assertion, made of course, without a SHRED of evidence. This journalist simply repeated facts - witness statements, polygraph test etc. Somehow these facts were conveniently ignored or not addressed by Jr. Why? But u seem fairly comfortable with this connected class Kennedy accusing the not connected, minimum wage security guard of conspiracy to commit murder.
You haven’t seen a virus - so they may or may not exist? Tell me good doctor - have you ever seen gravity? I am hoping you aren’t going to walk off a ledge anytime soon because of your failure to observe that. And once again, can you name any of these “highly credentialed” people who have ever ventured into a level 5 virus lab without a hazmat suit. None have, for the very reason you aren’t testing the gravity you have never seen by walking off a ledge.
And here’s a Kennedy - the very definition of elite class, connected class, privileged class etc etc - trashing a minimum wage security guard, accusing him of murder - without a shred of evidence. And many accept this, done without any thought for this poor guy. Done without any consequences to this privileged conspiracy KOOK.
As for who blew up the dam...it makes sense to me that the Russians did it. According to Ihor Syrota, the director general of the Ukrainian hydroelectric power company Ukrhydroenergo, the plant was designed to withstand a nuclear strike “To destroy the plant from the outside, at least three aircraft bombs, each of 500kg, would have had to be dropped on the same spot. The station was blown up from the inside.”
He added: “They brought hundreds of kilograms of explosives there. Ukraine reported last year that the station was mined. The Russians were just waiting for the right time to blow it up. And they did it during the new Ukrainian offensive in an attempt to deter them and slow them down.
Russian forces had control of the hydroelectric infrastructure on top of the dam and were using it as a garrison at the time of the blast. Explosive experts have said it would be much easier to blow up the dam from within than by firing on it from a distance.
It's just common sense that the Russians blew it up as opposed to the Ukrainians doing it.
CAUSALITY Your sections on this beg for more. For example, a big U. of Calgary/Exeter study https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9l_F2HX-DZE estimates a 40% less risk for dementia with vitamin D supplementation. Is that not de facto causality? How could it ever be excluded- or like most D science - ignored??
It hasn't been ignored. I've seen it in at least four physician newsletters I subscribe to and at least as many press accounts. The woman in the video says "vitamin D is associated with..." Which is another word for an observational study. Such studies are not conclusive, and she says so. She is correct. If you haven't read it, take a look at this essay I wrote a few years back on observational studies: https://www.proteinpower.com/observational-studies-2/ I wrote this post because I was getting so many inquiries about the latest observational study that popped up in the press. What it takes to show causality is a randomized controlled trial. Even those have to be replicated before anyone can say with decent probability that a specific dose of vitamin D prevents cognitive decline.
I consider that study to be an ideational vaccine. Given that the paper identifies a risk of 40% for dementia 'associated' with D insufficiency, I do get the idea - get some D. With sugar I realize I should do without it. These mental vaccinations' only side effect tends to be health? A way to survive in a milieu of collapsing medical authorities, yet rising AI that supplants authority with AGI as a lifetime resource?
I will email you! Was commenting here in hopes of cutting down on the deluge of email you must get!
I listened to a podcast a few months ago with author John Hamer who wrote "RMS Olympic" about the alleged true story behind the Titanic. I have not read his book but he sounded credible. Here is a synopsis from the Amazon page:
“The Titanic didn’t sink! The ship that went down in the North Atlantic in 1912 was the Olympic, the Titanic’s sister ship. That’s the intriguing hypothesis of this mix of conjecture and facts that points to what could be the greatest hoax of the century. Both ships were owned by the White Star Line, which was part of J.P. Morgan’s investment empire. The company had reason and opportunity to switch the identities of these luxury liners in order to commit massive insurance fraud. Although the Olympic was a new ship, she had become severely damaged by a series of accidents, which made her unseaworthy and uninsurable. In this book, John Hamer theorizes that, instead of selling her for scrap and taking a huge loss, which might have bankrupted the Morgan venture, the decision was made to switch identities, destroy the Olympic (now posing as the Titanic), collect the insurance, and continue operating the Titanic profitably (now posing as the Olympic). You’ll be amazed at how much compelling evidence there is to support this conclusion.”
G Edward Griffin, author and researcher.
That's basically what the video I posted says. Sounds plausible and all, but one would think that after 111 years the truth would have finally come out. In general. Not just in a single book or video.
Mike -
Between this post and this week's Quiver, I'm all set with reading - and watching - for the weekend; thanks for so many interesting things to think about.
Just a few typos - all of which I missed when I read the post last night.
Given its staring figure of 306 miles
. . . its starting figure . . .
the government had it’s tentacles in
the government had its tentacles in (I"m sure autocorrect "fixed" that one)
about the governments involvement
the government's involvement
I receive an email from a reader telling me the ship in the video is probably not the Titanic
I received an email . . . ? (And I must say I've gotta watch this one - I was working at Woods Hole when Ballard found the Titanic - can't imagine the conspiracy theory surrounding this.)
Thanks for the typos. All fixed. Yep, the Titanic video is pretty persuasive. And fun to watch.