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.
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.
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??
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.”
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.)