In this issue, we discuss ontological shock, what "The Science" really is in the eyes of two people, a long discussion of an important paper. And, of course, the video of the week.
"If the last three years haven’t caused an ontological shock, then I don’t know what it will take."
Last evening I suddenly noticed that Tucker Carlson has a new video up on Twitter, #9 I think, and it's whopper, 2 1/2 hour interview with Andrew Tate. Tucker flew out to Romania, so it's in-person.
I'm only 1-hr in, but will 4-sure finish it today.
At a point, amongst many other insightful things, Tate says that what covid showed him was how to split the world, as opposed to the common divisions like left/right, etc.
Says he: "those who think, and those who do not think at all."
He goes on to explain a bit, and it's good. It basically concludes with now finally understanding how the holocaust could have happened, since those of us not old enough to have seen it play out in real time often express bewilderment at how so many average folks could have so easily and willingly gone along with the most heinous things and often, even willingly, participate in them.
And of course, I've been saying for years that you know nothing unless you really look deeply into the Stanley Milgram experiments and truly understand them. And then, confront the reality that such is the absolute core state of humanity to like 90%.
Recently, I've been prone to saying that I'm reevaluating my longstanding disdain for the Christian doctrine of Original Sin... Not being facetious.
Being facetious is when I publicly yearn for "Noah 2.0." ;)
... I'd add one thing to Tate's synthetic division of the population: the honest vs. the dishonest, while noting that it's the dishonest who are the most vociferous spouters of "truth," which, once you understand, is their big tell.
Mike - About Jan 6…. What is most vexing to me is just about everything that happened surrounding what is called the January 6th insurrection. Just recently we got a view of a real insurrection. It occurred in Russia. The Wagner group began to March on Moscow attacking the seat of government with a real military unit, with real guns, real weapons, and real live ammunition. That by God was an insurrection. And, on January 6th, I agree, that there were some aggressive and hostile actions taken some people in the crowd who attacked the Capitol building and broke in. However, the large crowd was mostly a peaceable crowd. Had it been a BLM rally they would have called it a substantially peaceable rally and derided a few ‘bad apples.’ But it occurred at the capitol and while there were some clearly very aggressive members in this group most of the crowd was not that way there were women with children there were people sauntering around the Capitol even the guy with the Indian headdress was being walked around by several Capitol staff, being shown the premises. Even though it was understood that there was some risk for a march on the Capitol to occur and get out of hand there was no precaution taken to have extra guards on hand. We are told that about a day before this event occurred the riot helmets had been taken away from the police that normally would guard the Capitol. Hey! In short, this thing really has the look of a setup by someone who wanted to frame Trump for something they would call an insurrection that did not really rise to that definition.
Now to me the real kicker is that Trump gave this speech and civil libertarians have agreed there was nothing wrong with his speech that he wasn't particularly incendiary. Chuck Schumer, I think, did much worse in his remarks on the steps of the Supreme Court when he threatened them over Roe V wade.
However, the part about the January 6th insurrection that I find most vexing is that there were 36 Co-conspirators who have not been prosecuted. The Democrats, of course, held Congress when these first investigations occurred and all they showed were clips of film where there were aggressive hostile things being done. Since Republicans have taken over the House we've had a fuller release of film. I remember watching it more or less in real time and saying that there were a lot of people sauntering on the Capitol grounds and it didn't look very insurrection like to me. But what I'd really like to know is who are those 36 people who are unindicted Co-conspirators? I would like to run the film and identify each one of them and see what they did, before we charge Donald Trump and actually before we charge anybody else! We should find out exactly what these Co conspirators were doing who are not indicted. Surely, they were not the tip of the spear? We also need to find out who they are, identify them, and see who they were working for. It's quite strange for someone to get off as an unindicted Co-conspirator. Looking at this from the outside it seems to me as though either we have FBI agents who were posing as rioters, or we have FBI agents who had infiltrated these groups and had tried to prod them to move in this more aggressive direction. Or possibly we had people who are members of these groups who have been turned and had become sources for the FBI and the FBI wants to protect their identity and does not want them revealed to the public. But with so many people in this category it's hard to imagine that all of these are protected turncoats. And regardless, if a fuller investigation matching their faces to their role in the tape might blow their cover, I think it's much more important for the country and in fairness to Donald Trump that we find out who was really behind all of this. Was the FBI really behind this? Was the Democrat leadership behind this? Was Donald Trump behind this? I don't think we know any of those things.
And as far as blaming an insurrection on the President he had nobody, no armed generals, no country ready to recognize him, nothing ready to take control of the state that he was apparently getting ready to commandeer. On balance I don't know really what makes this an insurrection. There are so many questions about January 6 and the Democrats took so much time to stuff their particular view of things down our throats. And their view of things in retrospect has been so biased and unfair in its characterization of what happened. It's hard to take it at face value or any value. The fact that the committee did not allow Republicans to put their own members on the committee and that the only Republicans on the committee were those chosen by Nancy Pelosi and she of course only chose those Democrats who most hated Donald Trump, hardly makes the investigative committee fair.
So yes when you talk about January 6 you touch a raw nerve with me. I am not happy calling it an insurrection. And I am not happy blaming it on Donald Trump until we've explore the other avenues that are so far completely unexplored. And I am also completely and totally unimpressed by the idea that the FBI is a fair and impartial investigative authority in the United States. I don't know what happened at the FBI and I don't know what got it turned to become so Pro-Democrat. Maybe it was simply that they hated Trump. Maybe it's because over time the FBI has come to identify more with Democrats and the things that they stand for. But whatever it is clearly it's wrong. And we certainly can't have the FBI as a body that is going to favor one political party over the other. The way that they have sat on Hunter Biden's laptop for so long and produced nothing should be deemed a criminal offense and somebody at the FBI should be prosecuted for it.
I have grave doubts about the entire fiasco. According to Trump, he asked for 10.000 (or in one case I read 20,000) National Guard troops to be sent to the Capitol. According to Trump, Pelosi, who was responsible for the funding, turned him down. If you read press accounts from the NY Times and other left-leaning sources, they say it was all a lie. If you read reports from right-leaning sources, they all say it's the truth. Reuters reports that the person responsible said under oath in a recent congressional hearing that it was true. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congresswoman-says-trump-administration-botched-capitol-riot-preparations-2021-05-12/
But who knows. The press has so abdicated its post as the guardian of the truth, that no one can be believed. Which, to me, is a huge tragedy. I'm not sure our system of government can work without scrutiny by the press to keep our "leaders" honest. I'm not the only one who feels (felt) that way. If you read the Federalist Papers, you'll see that our founding fathers felt that way, too.
Our constitutional scheme of government includes the following four parts: Democracy / courts / state governments / an armed populace.
There is no mainstream free press today. Corporate-owned media, operating in a fascist partnership with government, doesn't count. Without comprehensive, actual reporting (not covering-up), the populace can't be informed and democracy becomes only polarized confusion.
In the early 1950's, we were taught this in elementary school--the *essentialness* of a free press part.
Yeah...well. Sad that this is really such a simple thing and yet so embedded in politics that we may never know the truth...why? Did Trump order protection or not...yes or no?
Who are the unindicted co-conspirators?
What did these unindicted co-conspirators actually do on Jan 6?
Did anyone turn down the request to protect the Capitol?
fairly simple set of questions here.
Not looking for a solution to climate change or a cure for cancer. Just some simple FACTS.
To me it has not been a case on on-to-logical shock. It has been more like a case of off-to-less-logical shock. Yeah. That's it. Nothing has made much sense. Fauci. The CDC. Pfizer, the Climate people, a lot of stuff. And Models. Statistical models to explain, emulate, or stand in for truth. Models are not truth. Many models bear only the faintest connection to reality. and yet epidemiologists, climate scientists, economists, political scientists, and many others- want to set their world changing views based on their often ill-fitting models...God Help us... We know not what we do.
“After reading that book, I realized we were being gaslit about the whole pandemic, which was just getting rolling as I finished the book. For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why the CDC, FDA, and NIH would be out-and-out lying about the situation, but they clearly were.”
Great post. I also followed the same “educational timeline” at the very beginning of COVID, while also closely following Ivor Cummins. My wife and I, as well as 5 of our 6 children, are in the healthcare field, so I was laser focused at the very beginning on reviewing all the same info on virology you focused on. When our practices were mandated closed in March 2020, I remember telling my sons their offices would probably be closed for a couple weeks but no way closures would go beyond 4 weeks, telling them we’d all be “back in the wild” by then. After 2 full months of mandatory office closure the political/media narrative had obviously decoupled from the science. Heavy hitting, forceful mask mandates hit us in the Chicago area in July 2020, when COVID had waned during the height of summer!!
“For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why the CDC, FDA, and NIH would be out-and-out lying about the situation, but they clearly were”.
Remember one thing, from the Democratic Party perspective, they NEEDED mail-in voting for the 2020 election. Therefore, they NEEDED lockdowns, school closures and social distancing to continue right up to the November election. Far-fetched?? As Robert Malone said, “After my ontological shock from the last three years nothing surprises me now”.
I have written much the same in earlier issues of The Arrow. Jane Fonda said it openly: "Thank God for Covid. It will let us get rid of Donald Trump."
If you recall, in the very early days of the Covid fiasco, Trump shut down all the flights coming in from China. At that point--actually, at every point during Trump's time in office--whatever Trump said, the anti-Trumpers (which included all the Democrats) said the opposite. After Trump shut down flights from China, Nancy Pelosi appeared unmasked roaming the streets of Chinatown in San Francisco telling everyone that Trump was full of you-know-what and for everyone to come celebrate Chinese New Year.
Soon thereafter she--along with Jane Fonda and all the Dems--realized that Covid could be the means of getting rid of Trump, so they set him up. And he walked into the trap. Although Covid ended up being not much more dangerous than a bad flu year, the entire country shut down, and the manner of voting changed. The rest is history.
Once again, thanks for all you do with this blog post. That clip at the end, deeply disturbing as it is, is not a surprise. Did you ever watch Matt Taibbi's congressional hearings on the twitter files? Talk about ontological shock - the way he was treated by the democrats questioning him was absolutely revolting.
And thanks for that stunning graphic of how fats are absorbed. I do wish my cardiologist had a clue (I suspect she doesn't as she told me not to do anything silly like try to figure out by paying for a blood test which kind of LDL I had).
At any rate - either there was only one typo or I was so engrossed - as usual - that I mentally corrected anything not quite right:
which if your fasting should be pretty low in fat
.. . . if you're fasting . . . . (autocorrect probably busy at work - doing it wrong)
And, yes, I did watch Taibbi's congressional hearing. It was a disgrace. That's why I posted the Gaetz video--it's stunning that the party that used to be for free speech has now turned into the anti-free-speech party.
I am 48, on Keto for 3 months; reduced BP from 155/95 to 105/70; lost 25 lb.; A1c 5.0; liver enzymes of 20; CRP of <1; but my fasting triglycerides is 288 (after fasting 14 hours - no coffee and no anything); HDL is 50; non HDL cholesterol is 411 (doctor is getting a heart attack...); my waist to Hight ratio is less than 0.5.
I have a specific question: when all markers are excellent (no metabolic syndrome; no inflammation etc.) is it a problem to have high triglycerides? if yes - what's the problem.
Hi Dr. Eades, I just received the MCT Oil Powder from the Amazon link you supplied. Are you using approximately their recommended dosage? I realize you use a different intake strategy and that it is wise to start easy. Many thanks! Nate
I'm sure a lot of people wonder the same thing. I'm so used to hearing and using "wee p" in the groups I run with that I forget most people probably don't know what I'm talking about.
For a long, long time the frequentists have dominated statistics. Virtually all scientific papers use p-values to determine whether or not whatever is being tested is "statistically significant," with the smaller the p-value the greater the probability that A causes B. Thus the wee p.
Problem with all this is that it is fallacious. Some papers now refuse to accept articles in which p-values are used. Most, however, still do. But there is a growing movement to get rid of p-values as a determinant as to whether some relationship between two variables is statistically significant.
In the case of the section I wrote about the study in this week's Arrow, in the first run through of the data generated by the first phase of the experiment, the change in LDL levels was statistically significant, i.e., it's p was wee enough to hit the mark. It was 0.05 or lower. But when they re-evaluated based on the fact that the lower-carb group lost a little weight, while the high-carb group didn't, the wee p became a little less wee. It bumped over the "magic" 0.05. Problem with all this is that it may have been a change in only one measurement that threw it over the magic 0.05. In which case the change in LDL went from "statistically significant," i.e., it could be claimed that the lower carb diet "caused" the lowered LDL, to there being no difference between the two diets in LDL levels.
"If the last three years haven’t caused an ontological shock, then I don’t know what it will take."
Last evening I suddenly noticed that Tucker Carlson has a new video up on Twitter, #9 I think, and it's whopper, 2 1/2 hour interview with Andrew Tate. Tucker flew out to Romania, so it's in-person.
I'm only 1-hr in, but will 4-sure finish it today.
At a point, amongst many other insightful things, Tate says that what covid showed him was how to split the world, as opposed to the common divisions like left/right, etc.
Says he: "those who think, and those who do not think at all."
He goes on to explain a bit, and it's good. It basically concludes with now finally understanding how the holocaust could have happened, since those of us not old enough to have seen it play out in real time often express bewilderment at how so many average folks could have so easily and willingly gone along with the most heinous things and often, even willingly, participate in them.
And of course, I've been saying for years that you know nothing unless you really look deeply into the Stanley Milgram experiments and truly understand them. And then, confront the reality that such is the absolute core state of humanity to like 90%.
Recently, I've been prone to saying that I'm reevaluating my longstanding disdain for the Christian doctrine of Original Sin... Not being facetious.
Being facetious is when I publicly yearn for "Noah 2.0." ;)
... I'd add one thing to Tate's synthetic division of the population: the honest vs. the dishonest, while noting that it's the dishonest who are the most vociferous spouters of "truth," which, once you understand, is their big tell.
Night before last I watched a much shorter Tucker Carlson talk on YouTube (surprisingly - at least it's still there now):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sEeQH2DuLE
and was amazed at how insightful - and funny - the guy is. Will definitely have to watch this new video he's posted. Thanks, Richard, for the tip!
Mike - About Jan 6…. What is most vexing to me is just about everything that happened surrounding what is called the January 6th insurrection. Just recently we got a view of a real insurrection. It occurred in Russia. The Wagner group began to March on Moscow attacking the seat of government with a real military unit, with real guns, real weapons, and real live ammunition. That by God was an insurrection. And, on January 6th, I agree, that there were some aggressive and hostile actions taken some people in the crowd who attacked the Capitol building and broke in. However, the large crowd was mostly a peaceable crowd. Had it been a BLM rally they would have called it a substantially peaceable rally and derided a few ‘bad apples.’ But it occurred at the capitol and while there were some clearly very aggressive members in this group most of the crowd was not that way there were women with children there were people sauntering around the Capitol even the guy with the Indian headdress was being walked around by several Capitol staff, being shown the premises. Even though it was understood that there was some risk for a march on the Capitol to occur and get out of hand there was no precaution taken to have extra guards on hand. We are told that about a day before this event occurred the riot helmets had been taken away from the police that normally would guard the Capitol. Hey! In short, this thing really has the look of a setup by someone who wanted to frame Trump for something they would call an insurrection that did not really rise to that definition.
Now to me the real kicker is that Trump gave this speech and civil libertarians have agreed there was nothing wrong with his speech that he wasn't particularly incendiary. Chuck Schumer, I think, did much worse in his remarks on the steps of the Supreme Court when he threatened them over Roe V wade.
However, the part about the January 6th insurrection that I find most vexing is that there were 36 Co-conspirators who have not been prosecuted. The Democrats, of course, held Congress when these first investigations occurred and all they showed were clips of film where there were aggressive hostile things being done. Since Republicans have taken over the House we've had a fuller release of film. I remember watching it more or less in real time and saying that there were a lot of people sauntering on the Capitol grounds and it didn't look very insurrection like to me. But what I'd really like to know is who are those 36 people who are unindicted Co-conspirators? I would like to run the film and identify each one of them and see what they did, before we charge Donald Trump and actually before we charge anybody else! We should find out exactly what these Co conspirators were doing who are not indicted. Surely, they were not the tip of the spear? We also need to find out who they are, identify them, and see who they were working for. It's quite strange for someone to get off as an unindicted Co-conspirator. Looking at this from the outside it seems to me as though either we have FBI agents who were posing as rioters, or we have FBI agents who had infiltrated these groups and had tried to prod them to move in this more aggressive direction. Or possibly we had people who are members of these groups who have been turned and had become sources for the FBI and the FBI wants to protect their identity and does not want them revealed to the public. But with so many people in this category it's hard to imagine that all of these are protected turncoats. And regardless, if a fuller investigation matching their faces to their role in the tape might blow their cover, I think it's much more important for the country and in fairness to Donald Trump that we find out who was really behind all of this. Was the FBI really behind this? Was the Democrat leadership behind this? Was Donald Trump behind this? I don't think we know any of those things.
And as far as blaming an insurrection on the President he had nobody, no armed generals, no country ready to recognize him, nothing ready to take control of the state that he was apparently getting ready to commandeer. On balance I don't know really what makes this an insurrection. There are so many questions about January 6 and the Democrats took so much time to stuff their particular view of things down our throats. And their view of things in retrospect has been so biased and unfair in its characterization of what happened. It's hard to take it at face value or any value. The fact that the committee did not allow Republicans to put their own members on the committee and that the only Republicans on the committee were those chosen by Nancy Pelosi and she of course only chose those Democrats who most hated Donald Trump, hardly makes the investigative committee fair.
So yes when you talk about January 6 you touch a raw nerve with me. I am not happy calling it an insurrection. And I am not happy blaming it on Donald Trump until we've explore the other avenues that are so far completely unexplored. And I am also completely and totally unimpressed by the idea that the FBI is a fair and impartial investigative authority in the United States. I don't know what happened at the FBI and I don't know what got it turned to become so Pro-Democrat. Maybe it was simply that they hated Trump. Maybe it's because over time the FBI has come to identify more with Democrats and the things that they stand for. But whatever it is clearly it's wrong. And we certainly can't have the FBI as a body that is going to favor one political party over the other. The way that they have sat on Hunter Biden's laptop for so long and produced nothing should be deemed a criminal offense and somebody at the FBI should be prosecuted for it.
I have grave doubts about the entire fiasco. According to Trump, he asked for 10.000 (or in one case I read 20,000) National Guard troops to be sent to the Capitol. According to Trump, Pelosi, who was responsible for the funding, turned him down. If you read press accounts from the NY Times and other left-leaning sources, they say it was all a lie. If you read reports from right-leaning sources, they all say it's the truth. Reuters reports that the person responsible said under oath in a recent congressional hearing that it was true. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congresswoman-says-trump-administration-botched-capitol-riot-preparations-2021-05-12/
But who knows. The press has so abdicated its post as the guardian of the truth, that no one can be believed. Which, to me, is a huge tragedy. I'm not sure our system of government can work without scrutiny by the press to keep our "leaders" honest. I'm not the only one who feels (felt) that way. If you read the Federalist Papers, you'll see that our founding fathers felt that way, too.
Our constitutional scheme of government includes the following four parts: Democracy / courts / state governments / an armed populace.
There is no mainstream free press today. Corporate-owned media, operating in a fascist partnership with government, doesn't count. Without comprehensive, actual reporting (not covering-up), the populace can't be informed and democracy becomes only polarized confusion.
In the early 1950's, we were taught this in elementary school--the *essentialness* of a free press part.
Yeah...well. Sad that this is really such a simple thing and yet so embedded in politics that we may never know the truth...why? Did Trump order protection or not...yes or no?
Who are the unindicted co-conspirators?
What did these unindicted co-conspirators actually do on Jan 6?
Did anyone turn down the request to protect the Capitol?
fairly simple set of questions here.
Not looking for a solution to climate change or a cure for cancer. Just some simple FACTS.
To me it has not been a case on on-to-logical shock. It has been more like a case of off-to-less-logical shock. Yeah. That's it. Nothing has made much sense. Fauci. The CDC. Pfizer, the Climate people, a lot of stuff. And Models. Statistical models to explain, emulate, or stand in for truth. Models are not truth. Many models bear only the faintest connection to reality. and yet epidemiologists, climate scientists, economists, political scientists, and many others- want to set their world changing views based on their often ill-fitting models...God Help us... We know not what we do.
“After reading that book, I realized we were being gaslit about the whole pandemic, which was just getting rolling as I finished the book. For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why the CDC, FDA, and NIH would be out-and-out lying about the situation, but they clearly were.”
Great post. I also followed the same “educational timeline” at the very beginning of COVID, while also closely following Ivor Cummins. My wife and I, as well as 5 of our 6 children, are in the healthcare field, so I was laser focused at the very beginning on reviewing all the same info on virology you focused on. When our practices were mandated closed in March 2020, I remember telling my sons their offices would probably be closed for a couple weeks but no way closures would go beyond 4 weeks, telling them we’d all be “back in the wild” by then. After 2 full months of mandatory office closure the political/media narrative had obviously decoupled from the science. Heavy hitting, forceful mask mandates hit us in the Chicago area in July 2020, when COVID had waned during the height of summer!!
“For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why the CDC, FDA, and NIH would be out-and-out lying about the situation, but they clearly were”.
Remember one thing, from the Democratic Party perspective, they NEEDED mail-in voting for the 2020 election. Therefore, they NEEDED lockdowns, school closures and social distancing to continue right up to the November election. Far-fetched?? As Robert Malone said, “After my ontological shock from the last three years nothing surprises me now”.
I have written much the same in earlier issues of The Arrow. Jane Fonda said it openly: "Thank God for Covid. It will let us get rid of Donald Trump."
If you recall, in the very early days of the Covid fiasco, Trump shut down all the flights coming in from China. At that point--actually, at every point during Trump's time in office--whatever Trump said, the anti-Trumpers (which included all the Democrats) said the opposite. After Trump shut down flights from China, Nancy Pelosi appeared unmasked roaming the streets of Chinatown in San Francisco telling everyone that Trump was full of you-know-what and for everyone to come celebrate Chinese New Year.
Soon thereafter she--along with Jane Fonda and all the Dems--realized that Covid could be the means of getting rid of Trump, so they set him up. And he walked into the trap. Although Covid ended up being not much more dangerous than a bad flu year, the entire country shut down, and the manner of voting changed. The rest is history.
Yep. As they tell us, Never let a good crisis go to waste. Thank you Dr. Eades for ALWAYS being a man of honor, integrity and courage.
Mike - greetings from the east coast:
Once again, thanks for all you do with this blog post. That clip at the end, deeply disturbing as it is, is not a surprise. Did you ever watch Matt Taibbi's congressional hearings on the twitter files? Talk about ontological shock - the way he was treated by the democrats questioning him was absolutely revolting.
If anyone's interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSi0wP_2sxY
And thanks for that stunning graphic of how fats are absorbed. I do wish my cardiologist had a clue (I suspect she doesn't as she told me not to do anything silly like try to figure out by paying for a blood test which kind of LDL I had).
At any rate - either there was only one typo or I was so engrossed - as usual - that I mentally corrected anything not quite right:
which if your fasting should be pretty low in fat
.. . . if you're fasting . . . . (autocorrect probably busy at work - doing it wrong)
Thanks for the typo (singular) fix. All done.
And, yes, I did watch Taibbi's congressional hearing. It was a disgrace. That's why I posted the Gaetz video--it's stunning that the party that used to be for free speech has now turned into the anti-free-speech party.
Ain't that the bloody truth!
Sigh. . . .
Hi!
I am 48, on Keto for 3 months; reduced BP from 155/95 to 105/70; lost 25 lb.; A1c 5.0; liver enzymes of 20; CRP of <1; but my fasting triglycerides is 288 (after fasting 14 hours - no coffee and no anything); HDL is 50; non HDL cholesterol is 411 (doctor is getting a heart attack...); my waist to Hight ratio is less than 0.5.
I have a specific question: when all markers are excellent (no metabolic syndrome; no inflammation etc.) is it a problem to have high triglycerides? if yes - what's the problem.
Thank you doctor
From a paid subscriber
Hi Dr. Eades, I just received the MCT Oil Powder from the Amazon link you supplied. Are you using approximately their recommended dosage? I realize you use a different intake strategy and that it is wise to start easy. Many thanks! Nate
Long time low carber, two year carnivore here and I’m up on most of the lingo, but I missed the post that explained "the wee of p"
Can you elaborate on this term or point me to a reference?
I'm sure a lot of people wonder the same thing. I'm so used to hearing and using "wee p" in the groups I run with that I forget most people probably don't know what I'm talking about.
For a long, long time the frequentists have dominated statistics. Virtually all scientific papers use p-values to determine whether or not whatever is being tested is "statistically significant," with the smaller the p-value the greater the probability that A causes B. Thus the wee p.
Problem with all this is that it is fallacious. Some papers now refuse to accept articles in which p-values are used. Most, however, still do. But there is a growing movement to get rid of p-values as a determinant as to whether some relationship between two variables is statistically significant.
In the case of the section I wrote about the study in this week's Arrow, in the first run through of the data generated by the first phase of the experiment, the change in LDL levels was statistically significant, i.e., it's p was wee enough to hit the mark. It was 0.05 or lower. But when they re-evaluated based on the fact that the lower-carb group lost a little weight, while the high-carb group didn't, the wee p became a little less wee. It bumped over the "magic" 0.05. Problem with all this is that it may have been a change in only one measurement that threw it over the magic 0.05. In which case the change in LDL went from "statistically significant," i.e., it could be claimed that the lower carb diet "caused" the lowered LDL, to there being no difference between the two diets in LDL levels.
You can read more about the fallacy of the wee p here: https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/45670/
Hope this helps.