Science™

Did Space-X Just Get Busted by a Mouse? 🐭

I just stumbled across this video which appears to show a MOUSE crawling over the exhaust pipe of a vessel that was supposedly hurtling through outer space:

The guy who filmed the video clearly is convinced it’s a mouse.

I looked at the comments on the video and one person said it’s a chunk of ice that fell off. The first thing in the video that we see move is not a mouse, that looks like something that fell from somewhere and landed on the exhaust pipe.

But the second thing is not ice.

Why I’m Inherently Skeptical of 5G

Lately there’s a lot of talk about 5G.

Does it cause coronavirus? I don’t know.

Is it bad for you in general? I don’t know.

There’s a lot I don’t know about 5G. I’m not an expert in this field so I’m not going to pretend to be one.

But I’m inherently skeptical of 5G for one simple reason: because there is no obvious need for it.

4G LTE works perfectly fine for me. It’s plenty fast. I’ve never once thought “Damnit, LTE sucks! I wish we had something faster!”

There is nothing wrong with 4G. I can watch YouTube videos perfectly fine with no buffering 99% of the time. Netflix, Hulu, Disney+ and HBO Go work perfectly over LTE.

Yet 5G is sold to us as being super fast:

“Remember in “The Amazing Spider-Man” when Peter Parker runs a Bing search (we know, Bing?) on Dr. Kurt Connors and instantly gets results? Your Web pages never load that fast. “That’s Darth Vader’s computer there,” Ericsson Chief Technology Officer Ulf Ewaldsson quipped. Pages usually take a second or two to load, even on a fast connection. With 5G, those results will come immediately.

Or if you wanted to kick back and download the movie “The Guardians of the Galaxy,” it would zip to your device in 15 seconds instead of the 6 minutes it takes via 4G.”

Yes, how did we ever live with one second loading times for search engine results and six-minute movie download times?

We don’t need 5G. LTE is fast enough.

Yet they’re selling 5G to us based on how much faster it will be.

I’m not buying it. There’s got to be some other reason for 5G.

And as if there weren’t enough reasons to be wary of 5G, the New York Times has already played the “RUSSIA!!!” card:

external-content.duckduckgo.png

Putin wants you to be afraid of 5G! If you are skeptical of 5G, you are a Russian Agent!

You wouldn’t want to be a traitor now, would you? Good. Then shut your damn mouth while the 5G antenna is installed on the streetlight in front of your house.

Scientific American published an op-ed in October 2019 entitled, “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe.”

“The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.  

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.”

In other words, the FCC’s radio frequency radiation exposure limits are out of date.

“Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

So all these bad things can happen to us (and animals and plants) even at radio frequency radiation exposure levels that the FCC has deemed “safe.”

Here’s where 5G comes in, and why it’s unique compared to previous generations of wireless technology (4G, 3G, etc.):

“The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.”

So what are the effects of millimeter waves on humans? I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that they’re not good:

“Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).”

Virtually every part of the elite’s overall agenda has depopulation in mind: abortion, LGBT rights, female empowerment, male disempowerment, vaccines, etc. It can’t be a coincidence that 5G can cause sterility.

The government doesn’t seem to care what health risks 5G–or any wireless technology at all, for that matter–cause:

“Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.”

Neurological disorders? That’s some scary shit.

“As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.”

I don’t trust 5G.

If you do trust it, that means you’re simply accepting the word of telecom industry “experts” and leaving your fate in their hands. What, exactly, have the elites done to earn your trust?

There is no obvious, pressing need for 5G, yet they’re rolling it out anyway. This, to me, has always struck me as suspicious. “5G is faster,” they tell us. But LTE is fast enough.

There’s something else they’re not telling us.

I’d advise getting out of cities as soon as possible.

***

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on 5G:

Screen Shot 2020-04-07 at 2.05.57 PM.png

 

 

The Replication Crisis: Most Scientific Studies are Bogus

You see it all the time: an article or news story begins with, “A new study shows. . .” or “Science says. . . ”

The media frequently uses Appeals to Authority–i.e. Science™–in order to convince you of something, whether it be to eat genetically modified food, not have kids, or, in the event their anti-reproduction propaganda failed to dissuade you from having kids, get your kids vaccinated.

Any time you see an article or news report that begins with “Study shows,” understand that the elite is trying to get you to change your behavior and is using the unassailable authority of Science™ to do so.

For most people, when they see, “Study shows,” they are immediately won over. “It’s gotta be true; Science™ says so.”

But what most people do not know is that their absolute faith in Science™ is misplaced and undeserved. The Scientific™ Community is in the midst of a great Replication Crisis, in which a large percentage–and in certain fields the number is well over a majority–of studies cannot be replicated in subsequent attempts.

The implications here are significant: if a “groundbreaking” study comes out and causes a whole bunch of people to make changes in their lives in response, you would hope that study is on solid ground. But many studies are on anything but.

Replication is extremely important when it comes to scientific studies. It means that after a study is published, other scientists can then conduct the study themselves independently and come to about the same conclusions. If a study’s results can be consistently replicated by other scientists, that means the study is more likely to be valid.

But get this: in the psychology field, 100 scientists tried to replicate the results of 270 prior studies, yet failed in nearly two-thirds of attempts.

“A landmark study involving 100 scientists from around the world has tried to replicate the findings of 270 recent findings from highly ranked psychology journals and by one measure, only 36 percent turned up the same results. That means that for over half the studies, when scientists used the same methodology, they could not come up with the same results.

“A large portion of replications produced weaker evidence for the original findings despite using materials provided by the original authors, review in advance for methodological fidelity, and high statistical power to detect the original effect sizes,” the team reports in Science today.”

This amounts to a massive problem for the psychology field, which many already believe to be a junk field.

For instance, one of the strongest myths that persists in the psychological field is that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain and that a depressed person’s only hope in life is consuming drugs produced by Big Pharma. But it’s not true:

“The idea that depression and other mental health conditions are caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain is so deeply ingrained in our psyche that it seems almost sacrilegious to question it.

Direct-to-consumer-advertising (DCTA) campaigns, which have expanded the size of the antidepressant market (Donohue et al., 2004), revolve around the claim that SSRIs (the most popular class of antidepressants) alleviate depression by correcting a deficiency of serotonin in the brain.

For example, Pfizer’s television advertisement for Zoloft states that “depression is a serious medical condition that may be due to a chemical imbalance”, and that “Zoloft works to correct this imbalance.”

However, there is one (rather large) problem with this theory: there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Recent reviews of the research have demonstrated no link between depression, or any other mental disorder, and an imbalance of chemicals in the brain (Lacasse & Leo, 2005; (Valenstein, 1998).

The ineffectiveness of antidepressant drugs when compared to placebo cast even more doubt on the “chemical imbalance” theory. (See my recent articles Placebos as effective as antidepressantsand A closer look at the evidence for more on this.)”

If you really think about it, the chemical imbalance theory is pretty obviously BS. When a psychologist or psychiatrist prescribes a patient Zoloft or Prozac or some other anti-depressant, does the shrink conduct a chemical test of the patient’s brain to confirm there’s a “chemical imbalance”? Of course not. Yet they prescribe the drug anyway.

How can they know someone has a chemical imbalance in their brain without testing?  While we are endlessly told that depression is caused by chemical imbalance, antidepressant drugs are not handed out based on chemical tests.

And yet go out in the street and ask 10 people at random if they believe depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and I’m sure a majority will answer affirmatively. People have been won over by pseudoscience.

The chemical imbalance myth has the effect of making depressed people hopeless. They come to believe that there is basically nothing they can do to feel better: not diet, not exercise, not repairing personal relationships, not reevaluating their career choices–nothing but buying and taking drugs produced by Big Pharma.

It’s not just the psychology field that is mostly junk science. Even the medical science field, which most people consider to be perhaps the most legitimate scientific field of all, is littered with junk studies:

“Low reproducibility rates within life science research undermine cumulative knowledge production and contribute to both delays and costs of therapeutic drug development. An analysis of past studies indicates that the cumulative (total) prevalence of irreproducible preclinical research exceeds 50%, resulting in approximately US$28,000,000,000 (US$28B)/year spent on preclinical research that is not reproducible—in the United States alone.

Indeed, there are many different perspectives on the size of this problem, and published estimates of irreproducibility range from 51% [5] to 89% [6]”

As high as 89%! That’s incredible.

The number of fields affected by the Replication Crisis is far greater than just psychology and medical science. Everything from physics to economics and beyond is tainted, and the scariest part is that we don’t even know the full depth and scope of the crisis yet.

The question then becomes, “How did this happen?”

How was Science™ ruined?

The answer, to me, is simple: corruption. Governments and corporations pay scientists to conduct studies that aren’t even really studies at all but instead exist to “confirm” and legitimize preexisting political agendas.

So many studies these days are not conducted to find the truth, but rather to push a certain political agenda.

And so when actual honest scientists get around to trying to replicate the results of these “studies,” they can’t.

But the problem is that the moment these junk studies are published, they are treated as the unassailable truth. Science has spoken! The debunking of the study never makes the news, so the corporate shills masquerading as scientists win the day.

The replication crisis undermines the entire scientific community. From the Wikipedia page on the Replication Crisis:

“Because the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method,[5] the inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work.”

That sounds like a huge deal, no?

Why is the Mainstream Media not informing Americans about the Replication Crisis? Why do we not hear on the news that the entire institution of Science™ is in the midsts of a massive credibility crisis?

Because the Mainstream Media relies on junk studies and junk science to spread its propaganda. The media elites know most Americans will not double check the studies they cite for replication and validity.

The media knows all it has to do is say, “Science says” or “Study shows” and most Americans will believe every last word that follows.

Yet it is the great irony of our time that we live in an era where the average person’s faith in Science™ has never been more blind and absolute despite the Scientific™ community’s objective credibility being perhaps as low as it has ever been.