ecosophia | Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 193

A comment on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) -

The models for randomization are built based on physical objects coming out of the same factory process. For example, if a machine follows the same mechanical process to create 1 million pennies, you can toss each of those pennies 100 times and expect the head to tail ratio to be nearly equal in all trials.

In case of humans, the number of variables is so large that we simply use the variables that make us feel good. How do we know that the proper randomization variables are races, sexes, age and so on? I may as well argue the real variable affecting the variation of health is the profile of the gut microbiome, and maybe that gut microbiome changes on the brand of the bread these people eat.

In general I find RCTs to be marketing devices used by drug companies (cartels) to downplay people's real life experiences. ("Oh, you have headache after taking my medicine? That is from stress or fear of injection, because our RCT participants had no headache.") Also, they are used by the same companies as legal shields. As far as scientific evidence goes, RCTs prove nothing.

There's another factor that points in the same direction: the pervasive presence of scientific fraud. It's very easy to rig a clinical trial to get whatever result you want, and there are dozens of ways to do it.

I'll start with my own experience here. When I was at college I did work-study in a laboratory run by a couple of professors who were doing research in a health-related field. They ran what were publicly claimed to be double-blind controlled studies. They weren't actually blinded at all. The actual work of assessing the data required judgment calls from grad students who knew perfectly well that their positions depended on getting results that supported the theory the professors favored. (We talked about it more than once.) Thus the research was completely fraudulent -- but it got ample grant money and media recognition, so nobody asked hard questions.

I've spoken to many other people who did the same sort of work-study grunt work in university laboratories, and nearly all of them have described the same general type of fraud -- part of a culture of pervasive dishonest that not only goes unpunished but receives ample rewards in terms of money, publicity, and influence. When somebody says "X was tested by an RCT," it's unsafe to assume anything other than "the manufacturer of X handed over money to a university lab and got the results they paid for."

As someone who briefly worked in the medical research system, I only even consider trusting triple blinded procedures. A double blind procedure means the patients and people giving the injection don't know which group someone belongs to. It does not mean the researchers do not know which group people belong to; and they can and do do things such as encourage people in the placebo group to see doctors or only forward the placebo group's information to hospitals; so when they hospitals report seeing people from the clinical trial, one of the ways to monitor the process, it is only the placebo group that gets fully reported to hospitals, while most if not all of the experimental group are not reported. Any experimental design which is merely double-blind, which is most of them, are open to exactly these games, and I'm quite convinced this is the reason why these experiments are almost always only double blinded and not triple blinded.

I'd also note that on more than one occasion a trial would start, get disastrous results and be called off. A few months later, a new experiment would start, with restrictions in place to keep the people who reacted to the ; this process would repeat until the researchers figured out what exclusion procedures and experimental targets would allow the trial to give the desired results. As long as the trial did not finish, it does not need to be reported to the regulators when seeking approval for a new product, so an insane number of trials get killed early if the results are not promising enough....

In lieu of endless repetitions, one can also propose a wide range of hypotheses based on different testing methods within a single trial and only report on the successful result for the single hypothesis and ignore the rest.

This is very obviously what was done with the Covid jab trial, there are an enormous number of simple and straight forward tests that are missing from the trial data, and the pathway they chose to proving the result is both is convoluted and subject to the judgement of the researchers.

It is plainly evident with any minor amount of critical thought that none of the simple outcomes gave a desirable answer and it took quite some hunting to find a 'successful' result.

True! You can also break up your experimental cohort into a series of groups, do the same test on each of them, pretend that they're independent trials, and let sheer chance give you p= >.05 on one of them. Whoopee! Statistical significance. Then you erase the data of all the others and pretend they didn't happen. I saw that a few times too.

I also saw that a couple times; another one I saw on similar lines was finding clever ways to remove a large fraction of the poorer performing members of the experimental group and a large fraction of the healthier members of the placebo group from the sample as "outliers". Some of the excuses were quite amusing in a twisted sort of way...

Oh, sure, and that is probably actually preferable. The cases I saw where trials were called off though were when things happen like a sizable fraction of the experimental group died during a trial; the researchers went through the cause of deaths, figured out it was heart problems, and forced everyone who signed up for attempt number 2 to be screened for heart problems. The vaccine trials did not last long enough for that to become an issue.

The kicker is that when they send such a trial to the FDA, there's no warning that patients with heart problems should not take the drug. There are reasons why early trials, in particular, try to include healthy people -- in Phase I you don't want their pre-existing conditions to create false impression of safety risks. But if the phase 3 trials (if any....) excluded people with any condition that you have, it means that safety or net benefit in people like you has not been tested.

Another measure to look at is, of the patients who were screened and willing to participate, what percentage were found eligible to participate (whether they ultimately agreed to or not)? If 90% of screened people were eligible, great. If only 20% of screened people with the condition to be treated were eligible, that means it is a highly selected group and most patients will be unlike them. Maybe sicker, maybe less sick -- but different.

I keep thinking I should write a book about this. But I have no Credentials so it would have to be self-published.

Please do!

There's a real bust going on in the Bio-Tech-Tech field at the moment, certainly where I live which is a major Tech 'hub', and lots of people are being thrown out of work - a friend who runs a Bio-Med company is swamped by their CVs - and so those who still have jobs will be even less likely to be ethical..... .

The vast majority of science is* honest. Fields like biomedicine have special motivation for people to put their thumbs on the scale: a lot of money is riding on the results. (For a few people, power over others is equivalent to money.) I work in a kind of science where there is little funding, and results don't directly affect anyone's profit. I have to produce some kind of data or get sacked, but what those data show will have no effect at all on my pay or continued employment.

And, there are corporate fields where there is money at stake, say materials science, but there is less hocus-pocus than in medicine because either the product works or it doesn't work and people will be able to tell that right away, so faking early positive results would just lead to expensive product development and a boss explosion later.

Right now government-funded science is being targeted if not altogether shut down. Some of that is for good cause, I must agree, but it leaves corporations funding an increasing share of the research that will be done in future. Since corruption is always a temptation when people's livelihoods are at stake, the best way to minimize it would be to somehow have research performed by people who are insulated from punishment for unpopular results. We aren't moving in that direction, I fear.

*Is or was until recently. People employed by institutions that expect them to generate regular publications, but that aren't equipped to evaluate their quality, can now get an AI to write a manuscript describing the discovery of a new molecule or a 15-person clinical trial that never happened. Developing-country universities are most at risk. Most manuscripts are still written by actual humans, but that may change, because in the time I could produce one piece of work, ChatGPT could fake ten thousand.

I'm far from sure I believe that the vast majority of science is honest, or was until recently. The most parsimonious explanation for the replication crisis currently roiling the scientific community is that experimental and statistical fraud have become pervasive in most if not all sciences. Until I see some reason to think otherwise, I think it's wise to assume that the scientific community has become corrupt, the scientific method no longer functions to weed out dishonesty, and any allegation made by a scientist should be assessed for financial and partisan bias, in the same way as an allegation made by a politician or a salesperson.

Most science isn't relevant to factional affiliation. The replication crisis is bad in medicine, social science, and psychology, not to mention corporate toxicology. One reason is that researchers often skew conduct of studies to support their pre-existing biases and profit or power interests. Another is that humans and other animals are complex critters and one group, at one time, actually may behave in a study in a way that another group at another time will not. The fact that another party conducting the same study doesn't get the same result doesn't prove that the first party did anything wrong, much less deliberately.

But if a geological study is looking for oil, where there is gigantic money involved (look at current politics), nobody's going to fake data. You're either right or you're wrong, provably so, and putting out wrong data would be devastating to one's reputation.

And if the study is about the atmospheric composition of a planet several light-years away, or the chemical constituents of rhubarb, or the number of weevil species in New Caledonia, there is hardly any chance that the results are being faked. The only reason to do such a study is because you want to know the reality. The folks doing basic science should not be tarred with the same brush as the worse end of the applied-science crowd. I remember many years ago you wrote that you hoped ecology would survive the downfall of science. That won't happen if anyone who engages in systematic hypothesis-testing or data collection gets demonized as we go down.

If ecology survives the downside of science, it'll be -- as I said at the time -- because it gets taken up by citizen scientists who have no institutional affiliation and aren't being paid for their work. Do you by any chance follow the Retraction Watch website? I do, and what they've reported suggests that the rot has gone far beyond a handful of high-profile and highly partisan sciences. My take at this point is that a combination of collapsing ethics in society at large and increasing publish-or-perish pressures has driven a steady erosion of scientific ethics and led a great many scientists in every field to do what they think they have to do to get and keep research positions, grants, and the other professional rewards that come to those who play the game. That's not "demonizing," it's recognizing that the same cultural pressures that have led to a rising tide of unethical behavior in every other part of our society don't trickle away harmlessly from academe.

I agree with you that ethics are slipping across the board, but disagree that it's worse in most of science, or intellectual pursuits in general, than anywhere else (say, business). An individual paleontologist could be crooked in the same way that an individual roofer could be crooked, but we don't want to give up roofing. Retraction Watch lists thousands of bad papers; they don't list hundreds of thousands of papers that haven't been accused of anything.

Before I started this line of discussion I had not read your ecosophia.net essay yet (forgot it was Wednesday ... glad you're returning to the topic of decline). Had I done so, I'd have quoted your: "one of the core reasons that modern medicine does such a poor job of dealing with so many health conditions, for example, is that our medical researchers try to find a single cause for conditions that are the product of many intersecting factors..."

That's an inherent flaw, or weakness, of science. What really happens is too complex to be studied in any affordable way or feasible timeframe, so people wind up doing studies of genetically identical caged rodents with only a single factor varying at a time. Of course the results of these various studies don't all jibe with each other, because the setup is totally artificial, and if results reflect a generally applicable real relationship, or the lack of one, it's in large part through luck.

I'm starting to wonder if you have an unstated agenda here. Where did I say that scientific ethics are worse than that of the rest of society? Or that I think we ought to do without science altogether? Your rhetoric here seems to be aimed at defining those you disagree with in terms more extreme than their words justify, and that's not helpful, you know.

I don't have any unstated agenda with regards to YOU, and no offense intended there. I'll state the agenda that I don't want to get persecuted, or hacked to death with cowrie shells, in my old age because my own job falls into the category of science as most broadly defined. (Which, to be clear, is not something you are promoting.)

You didn't say that scientists were more unethical than others, but if they're not, then you've got a bigger target ready to aim at.

Um, I think you mean some other kind of shells. You'd have one heck of a hard time using a cowrie shell to hack anything at all:

From my perspective, it's wildly exaggerated to talk about people being hacked to death. What's at issue, rather, is the cultural prestige and government funding that currently go into the sciences. Those are indeed at risk, because rampant scientific fraud isn't just a public relations problem. It cuts to the heart of the scientific endeavor -- and the fact that so many people involved in the sciences focus on insisting that there isn't really a problem at all is not helping the situation any, you know.

Edited 2025-04-17 01:41 (UTC)

I was thinking of Hypatia. What kind of shells were those again? (DuckDuckGo says oyster or abalone.) Thanks for the mollusc education; I'm a long way from a seashore.

There are people who want pogroms. I hope they don't get their way. Perhaps a better comparison for me to make would be to corruption in religion. Oh, boy, is there a lot of it. But there are also plenty of honest, caring, poorly-paid ministers who don't deserve to be attacked or have their churches shut down. FWIW, I agree that cutting back on federal funding of science is a good call--but it does have negative consequences too.

Yes, I thought you meant Hypatia. It still seems to me that you're missing or perhaps evading my point, but I don't allow others to keep flogging the same issue over and over again, and so I try not to do the same thing myself.

Well, if your point is either that science as a broadly defined profession needs to clean house, or that it doesn't merit the level of financial and social support it's gotten in recent decades, I can completely agree with both of those.

Er, that's what I've been saying all along, with one additional point: until science as a profession cleans its house, nobody is going to take anything that scientists say on trust. They had that trust, they abused it, and now it's gone. A lot of hard work and a new openness to public scrutiny from outside the scientific community is going to be needed before anything of the kind can be restored.

If you want to see science survive the twilight of the industrial world, in other words, as a participant in science, you have your work cut out for you. Most of it isn't anything I can do as an outsider -- and a despised outsider, by the way. (You might recall for a moment the kind of rhetoric scientists like to direct toward occultists and practitioners of alternative health care, both of which I am.) It has to be done from within. I'd like to see science passed onto the future, but all I can do is hope that you and people like you will do something about scientific fraud...and not just go around insisting in forums like this one that it really isn't a problem.

If I may - when there is an egregore, and the egregore develops a taint, it is not *just* a question any longer of whether *some* of its practitioners are honest, caring, poorly-paid (as it were) ministers, or researchers, or whatever.

Sometimes a practitioner needs to consider their own relationship to the egregore as a whole - whether to keep feeding it, or attempt to reform it from within, or leave and take their energy into a different egregore, or something I have not thought of... but, regardless, an egregore can become a "being" in its own right, and may simply *use* the honest, caring, poorly paid exemplaries as camouflage to hide the dishonest, brutal, profiteering parts from scrutiny.

A very solid point. Thank you.

If I may add one more tiny thing - it is that, for me, the "taint" of this "science" egregore comes in with language like "control the variables", and generally with the pre-supposition that nature is inert, and the scientist stands somewhere entirely neutral and unconnected, and therefore Nature can be experimented on by Scientist with no consequence and no karma and no ethical "drag".

In terms of leaving the egregore and bringing the "good" energies of science into an entirely different egregore, it strikes me that reviving the concept of "natural philosophy" - which is more a matter of participatory observation of the concatenation of relationships and processes that fall under the rubric of "nature" - would be one way of conserving important aspects of scientific method and enquiry. Ian McGilchrist, just for example, strikes me as an important modern natural philosopher.

"...a combination of collapsing ethics in society at large and increasing publish-or-perish pressures has driven a steady erosion of scientific ethics and led a great many scientists in every field to do what they think they have to do to get and keep research positions, grants, and the other professional rewards that come to those who play the game."

I've gotten to the point where I've started to wonder how much of it they are even consciously aware of.

Having spent time in academic research before dropping out of grad school (in large part due to the issues under discussion), and also spending a fair amount of time around the general liberal-PMC milieu that produces and trusts experts, I sometimes get the impression that what we're dealing with isn't either a lack of reason or deliberate fraud, but rather the consequence of a weird faith that these people have been indoctrinated into their whole lives.

It's hard to explain, but the best way I can describe it is this way: When I was taking graduate level classes and working as a research assistant, I would often ask the wrong questions or point out inconvenient data or confounding variables that threw "correct" answers into question, but the reactions I would get were...strange. People really would look at me like I was crazy. They all knew what the acceptable areas of discourse were, and what sort of answers were the "right" ones, but it didn't seem like they even really grasped that they were manipulating data or dismissing "wrong" perspectives. It was like their belief system of how things "worked" and what the "correct" answers surely were, were all a matter of ingrained belief, and if somebody suggested something outside those parameters they must be confused, and if the data showed something outside those parameters, well, then, the data must be wrong, or the study wasn't set up right, or we must be missing something, or similar.

I'm sure that conscious fraud also takes place, but I also think there is something else going on. What I saw during my time in academia was in some ways more disturbing: an entire industry of well-indoctrinated Good Students who had spent their whole lives chasing the Right Answer, and literally had not concept of how the Right Answer and the actual truth might not be the same thing. The unstated - and I think really almost unconscious - purpose of research was, of course, to get the Right Answer, if it data didn't produce the Right Answer, then obviously the data/method must be wrong, and in need of revising. Again, I'm not suggesting that deliberate fraud doesn't ever take place - but what I saw was more akin to a bastardized religious devotion to "keeping the faith" in a certain world view of how the world worked, and making reality fit the belief system, in a very blind and indoctrinated kind of way. I found the whole thing just creepy.

> I've gotten to the point where I've started to wonder how much of it they are even consciously aware of.

As I've become of aware of this fact it is spooky the extent to which it applies across all human activity, and I am in no doubt that it is true. Very little (I hesitate to say zero, but it is close) human thought is rational, and that which portends to be rational is simply backfilling narrative to an outcome decided either unconsciously or emotionally.

The Right Answer can never be questioned because it is not actually an answer, but a fundamental tenet of a belief system. JMG's simple observation that Progress is a religion is a much more astute statement with far deeper consequences than it appears.

I at least find it reassuring to see your comment expressing a degree of this understanding here, because I've found next to nobody wants to acknowledge how this works; let alone talk about it.

"And if the study is about the atmospheric composition of a planet several light-years away, or the chemical constituents of rhubarb, or the number of weevil species in New Caledonia, there is hardly any chance that the results are being faked."

Why do you think so? Finding sensational results bring more government money and pays the researchers, which means the system is biased toward cutting corners.

"That won't happen if anyone who engages in systematic hypothesis-testing or data collection gets demonized as we go down."

In case of biology, these days I start with assuming that the researcher is dishonest and then let him prove me wrong. That is what the "natural origin of sars-cov-2" saga and various other retractions of papers not pushing mainstream thesis taught me. Biology as a field is rotten to the core, and ecologists are no exception.

I don't agree. Only the first example claim could be sensational -- e.g., if you claim that a planet's atmosphere is full of DMS so it probably has metabolizing life, one of today's headlines, you'll get media attention. But if a claim is really "sensational" that probably means that it is unexpected, not likely according to current theories (or their holders' belief system). That might get you more access to funding or it might get you less, since the people on the "peer review" panels will be disgruntled with you for claiming something they think unlikely. And they will be highly motivated to critique and pick at your data, so if you faked your analyses or were just sloppy, someone will soon find out and crucify you.

Then, I know several ecologists and would not describe any of them, or their work, as "rotten to the core." (How would any given researcher prove you wrong? What evidence would you accept?) Such rhetoric alarms me. Ecologists are not well paid and the billionaire class mostly wants them to shut up and go away. For decades they have been paying people to tell us that you can't trust those scientists, those sneaky egghead types who tell all sorts of lies, like tobacco causes cancer, Roundup causes cancer, the climate is changing. Etc. I am far more likely to assume that anyone whose net worth has more than seven zeroes is rotten to the core.

How about verb conjugation in non-standard Norwegian dialects? I studied linguistics in university, came across some really odd claims in the course of research for a paper, and when I started trying to investigate found out the claims were most likely fabricated.

If data for papers on something as absurdly unimportant and easily verifiable as that (Norwegian is not exactly an obscure language!) is being fabricated, and no one cared that an undergraduate student found this, I think there is a far deeper problem.

There's no profit to be had by finding one conjugation vs. another and probably no ideology to support, so if it was fabricated, it was probably because someone had to finish a thesis or something really fast or else so just made up text to fill it out. Two other possibilities might be that the source was incompetent and honestly wrote down what they thought they heard, or if the wrong claims are old enough, that the source actually got some of it right but the dialects have since changed to make it wrong. I don't know anything substantive about linguistics so can't guess if that is plausible.

In general, we shouldn't be treating writing as holy writ that must be true because it was published, perhaps a leftover habit from bibleism, but when we see that some of it is wrong we shouldn't flip to the opposite and say all writing is false or all is untrustworthy so we can never know anything. Our knowledge is not just finite but imperfect, which means that it contains some falsehoods, whether accidental or deliberate. Rooting out and removing those falsehoods is an important part of improving our knowledge.

I'm not sure why you want to focus on profit and ideology when my point was that the problems with scientific fraud are much deeper than that. What I'm saying is that even in cases where there is no society wide ideology to support, nor corporate/government profit to be had by finding one thing vs another, we cannot trust the modern system of "scientific" research. If an interested and motivated undergraduate can look at something and say "This doesn't make sense", and upon investigation find evidence of either fraud or specatcular incompetence, and the general response from the academics who study the field is to say "Huh, interesting" and then move on to other things, something has gone horribly wrong.

"Our knowledge is not just finite but imperfect, which means that it contains some falsehoods, whether accidental or deliberate. Rooting out and removing those falsehoods is an important part of improving our knowledge."

Part of this process means identifying when a given source is so untrustworthy as to no longer be worth taking seriously. Given the rampant problems with our current systems of knowledge, and the fact that it does not seem to be self correcting, I'm far from sure it at this point that it is ever reasonable to trust anything that a scientist or any kind of researcher or acadameic says that cannot be personally verified.

Fair enough, but then, are there any categories of people whose factual claims you do consider it reasonable to trust without personal verification? Or do you consider it wisest to adopt a semi-Skeptic posture of only believing that which you have seen? (A true Skeptic would also not believe that which he HAD seen, but that's nuts.)

Yes. I'm happy to trust people who do not lie to me.

But that sounds like you are speaking of people as individuals. How can you identify the truth-telling individuals without verifying their claims?

Whether you think that vast majority of scientists are honest or dishonest depends on which body part of this giant elephant you got to inspect. I wrote the following blog post - "Instability Index of Scientific Disciplines" to share some thoughts on that aspect.

https://wwiii.substack.com/p/instability-index-of-scientific-disciplines

In general, the scientific disciplines maturing in the "old world" before WWII are more honest than the ones from the new continent. Math for example was an well-established discipline before US became a country. So, when mathematicians claim to have solved Fermat's last theorem, you can generally trust that they are not bluffing.

Biology and medicine expanded greatly after WWII with "supervision" from US institutions. I would side with JMG regarding their trustworthiness.

"And, there are corporate fields where there is money at stake, say materials science, but there is less hocus-pocus than in medicine"

Once you separate the cultures as old world versus new world, your observation will make more sense than the explanation provided by you ("because either the product works or it doesn't work and people will be able to tell that right away"). Despite thousands of people getting side effects (death is one of them), biologists in academia never complained about the product not working. Instead they went out to fight the "anti-vaxxers".

Hear, hear.

I still hear people speaking of some new research as a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal.

I now understand that "peer reviewed" simply means that it conforms to the conventional wisdom, doesn't step on anybody's toes. And after the way such prestigious journals as JAMA and the Lancet performed during the pandemonium, I wouldn't wipe my behind with those rags.

Also, increasingly PR-reviewed papers are getting retracted later, if "wrong kind of people" (such as ecosophians) make their unconventional findings go viral.

We are dealing with other issues here, what you are describing is much like a problem of the previous century! Now we have Big Business and Big Gov treating, language, biology and everything like a software/hardware problem. Imagine how many issues are on standardised electronic hardware and software that are pretty much not diverse compared with life. But having the hardware/software paradigm about life will bring wild ramifications.

Why did Musk specifically used the phrase "summoning the demon" when talking about AI, more than a decade ago nonetheless? Not in uncertain terms, is not even metaphorical, more like pataphorical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzb_CSRO-0g

If AI in other areas is at least obnoxious and demonic as the LLMs are (the linguistic AI) and diffusion algorithms are(the "art"/image AI), we are fried.

They even discuss the risks while they are using this technologies unregulated for at least more than a decade. Strange how the obesity pandemic, started showing up just about time when synthetic hormones and enzymes showed up big time in the 90's-2000's.

"Biosecurity in the Age of Synthetic Biology" by Leyma Pérez De Haro on Routledge:

Just a summary search and you find hundreds of papers. Greek gods might know what are in the R&D labs of Big Business! Take the simplest bioactive component the enzymes, just a bad synthetic enzyme can be extremely dangerous because just trace elements are enough to disrupt life processes. And now they put this stuff everywhere from perfumes, paints and mostly in dish and clothes detergents, etc

And yes synthetic biology sheds, enzyme, cells, etc shed from people's clothes, perfumes, etc

Synthetic Enzymes
Synthetic Biology Perspectives of Microbial Enzymes and Their Applications

Synthetic Vitamins
Synthetic vs Natural Nutrients: Does it Matter?
Transforming Traditional Nutrition Paradigms with Synthetic Biology

Synthetic Viruses
Synthetic Viruses: A New Opportunity to Understand and Prevent Viral Diseases
Synthetic Virology Approaches to Improve the Safety and Efficacy of Oncolytic Viruses

Synthetic mRNA Therapies
Harnessing Synthetic Biology for Advancing RNA Therapeutics and Vaccines
Making the Next Generation of Therapeutics: mRNA Meets Synthetic Biology

Synthetic Cells
Present and Future of Synthetic Cell Development
Synthetic Cells: From Simple Bio-Inspired Modules to Sophisticated Artificial Cells

Synthetic Proteins and Food
Synthetic Biology for Future Food: Research Progress and Future Directions
Food Synthetic Biology-Driven Protein Supply Transition: From Animal to Plant-Based Proteins

Synthetic Organs and Organisms
Applications of Synthetic Biology in Medical and Pharmaceutical Fields
Synthetic Organisms and Living Machines

Other Synthetic Life Innovations
What is (Synthetic) Life? Basic Concepts of Life in Synthetic Biology
Doubling Our DNA Building Blocks Could Lead to New Life Forms
Scientists Aim for 'Darwinian Evolution' with Artificial Life Project

Software, AI, and Molecular Printers in Synthetic Biology
Artificial Intelligence Powering Synthetic Biology: The Fundamentals
How AI Is Transforming Synthetic Biology: Reaching Far Beyond Biopharma
Automating Your Synthetic Biology Workflow

Edited 2025-04-16 08:18 (UTC)

Why did Musk specifically used the phrase "summoning the demon" when talking about AI, more than a decade ago nonetheless? Not in uncertain terms, is not even metaphorical, more like pataphorical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzb_CSRO-0g

Strange how he is cautioning us while he is dipping in this whole universe...

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/musk-says-tesla-is-building-rna-microfactories-for-curevac-idUSFWN2E9067/

If you're randomizing by those things, you aren't really randomizing. Randomization must assign people accepted into a study to treatment groups at random. Like with coin tossing, if a study is small, you could have, say, 70% male in one group and 40% male in the other by chance, and that can affect the results. Sex and age really are hugely important variables influencing responses to treatments. But if you have hundreds or thousands of participants, the M/F ratio, age distribution, etc. should be very similar in both groups. (Though rarely identical - that would be a red flag for data faking.)

Researchers must supply the results for the whole group, all demographic categories. They will also usually break down results by different demographic categories, and should do so. You don't want them, for example, to use overall-positive data from a mostly-male study to justify jamming devices into women that actually kill them, without ever admitting that. (Or to claim that a product very rarely causes myocarditis, let's say, without admitting that 18-to-25-year-olds are very different from 70+-year-olds.) Sometimes this breakdown seems to show benefit for one subgroup and not another and if the overall study was negative, they will spin that heavily as justification for treating the first subgroup, but properly, it can only be hypothesis-generating data.

Non-randomized data-dredging studies use sex, age, race to categorize people from medical record databases, to try to match pairs of similar individuals who do and don't get various interventions. They may also make half-assed attempts to correct for socioeconomic status (a giant confounder) and various disease labels, treated as binary yes-no conditions. But as you indicate, there are vast numbers of things affecting health that are not included in those records at all, such as diet and health attitudes, or that are far more complex than yes-or-no. Such studies can never be definitive

The issue of how clinical trials are designed to reduce the apparent side effects is a separate one and there are multiple mechanisms by which it is done. I can think of at least five off the top of my head. (1) Exclusion criteria that kick out people most likely to have side effects. (2) Active-drug run-in period before the study starts, kicking out anyone who has side effects. (3) Asking about side effects in a way that minimizes reports of problems, or asking very few questions at all. (4) Asking about side effects in a way that *maximizes* reports, which obscures differences between subgroups. (E.g., aromatase inhibitors don't really cause crippling muscle and bone pain, because in a 5-year study 65% of users reported some level of pain at some time point vs. 62% of placebo users, not significantly different. Who the frack goes 5 years without ever feeling any pain?) (5) And the still-seen Just Don't Mention Side Effects At All.

Your last paragraph brought back memories for me: it is so very important to ask the appropriate questions that actually address the study - whether it is a randomized clinical trial, survey (i.e. opinion or political poll), etc. To my eternal shame (and even though I was young, new at the job, I should have been quicker to get the implications): The question the supervisors asked as whether or not patients of certain institutions were getting adequate care. To answer the question, I was asked to summarize a set of surveys of these institutions and present the results; trouble is, the survey addressed 'level of care appropriateness' but NOT adequacy of care.

boccaccio posted this late in the last thread, but I think it is important enough to be mentioned again -

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Fast Track Designation for the self-amplifying mRNA (sa-mRNA) vaccine candidate, ARCT-2304, designed for active immunization to protect against disease caused by influenza A H5N1 subtype contained in the vaccine."

https://ir.arcturusrx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/arcturus-therapeutics-receives-us-fda-fast-track-designation-0

What is going on?

Don't get excited. This is about FDA bureaucracy and the fees Big Pharma has to pay to get product review. Meryl Nass explains this as an example of "social media journalists writing before educating themselves on the subject". Read her explanation here:
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/hhs-fda-and-rfk-are-being-rolled

Good point. She seems confident that FDA approval will not happen because the agency will be under "Trumpian/Kennedy control." It will proximately be controlled by Marty Makary, whom I would HOPE would prevent approval, though he does disappoint me by boosting HRT based on biased claims. However, ultimately it's Trump (and Musk) in charge and -- I know this is not a popular attitude here, but it is mine -- my bet is all Arcturix would have to do is buy a half-billion of Trumpcoin and approval would be likely.

Lol. You just told some screaming bluehairs to educate themselves. That got half a chuckle today.

I feel excited to share that the governor of Idaho signed the OTC Ivermectin bill into law:
https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/capitol-watch/idaho-governor-signs-bill-making-ivermectin-available-without-prescription-law/277-f45f6beb-c95a-4355-9feb-bfdc744f6d4a

No more horse paste for me! =-)

On a related note, I also learned yesterday that Little changed his mind about signing into law the health freedom bill because he got pressured from so many directions. The bill's opponents were trying to carve out day care centers as an exemption (meaning they wanting to require all kids in licensed day care centers to be vaccinated) to the bill's mandates and the bill's authors said "no way" because they realized they had the support to get the bill through after Little's first veto. Little apparently decided the optics would be bad for him if he stood by his original veto.

Progress in my opinion....

the governor of Idaho signed the OTC Ivermectin bill into law

Excellent news! Congratulations, residents of Idaho!

Caldathras

Pretty sure the bill getting rid of state licensing for daycares passed and was signed, so . . . requiring vaxes for liscenced daycares would be requiring vaxes for something that no longer exists.

I understand the second Medical Freedom bill, the one Gov. "Chicken" Little signed, is greater in scope than the one he did not sign.

At least the legislature is out of session now, so we don't have to watch them for shenanigans. They do some good, they do some bad.

BoysMom
P.S. Little earned his nickname by being too afraid to call the legislature back to session in 2020.

About what's been happening with state medical freedom legislation in Idaho—

This upcoming livestream looks like it should offer some very crunchy info:

States Fighting Back! Fighting for Medical Freedom across Idaho, Texas and South Carolina
Live stream Thursday April 17 7 PM ET
with Dr. Kat Lindley, Leslie Manookian, Miste Karlfeldt, Sarah Clendendon, Dr. Andrea Nazarenko, and Steve Kirsch
Vaccine Safety Research Foundation
https://rumble.com/v6s4ny5-episode-173-states-fighting-back.html

Hey JMG

May be a silly question, but when will the COVID open posts be in their 5th year of existence? Do you count from the actual start of each year, or 12 months after the month and day you posted the first open post?

J.L.Mc12

Each year has 52 weeks. We'll begin the fifth year when weekly post #209 goes up.

Thank you so much for creating this space! It may have saved my life, but it certainly saved my sanity. A big thank you to you and all the other posters!

Given that 5 people that studied with me in high school are dead, all 30 years old, as well as my aunt, my dad's best friend and mentor in computer things; and that a lot of people I know just can't stop being sick with each round getting weirder: at this point I am certain that one timely journal post saved my life, or at least living it with dignity, just by a week. I was in a foreign country at the time the poison was being enforced, with my job, all my stuff and friends back in the U.S. I was this || close to becoming immunologically crippled for the rest of my life. Only the gods know how I managed to get this lucky, in a family and job that bought all the panic, and then get my life back. At this point I get weekly reminders that it was a good decision and not only in that respect, but in realizing beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the group mind of the industrial world is collapsing into hallucinations and sheer batshale madness. Today I don’t get in contact with it without some sort of protection. So yes, thank you! This space has literally saved sanity, and lives, and I bet it came at a cost.

And likewise. I know that I was very lucky to be self-employed and able to avoid most of the craziness when it reached its peak; I'm glad to have been able to help those who weren't so fortunate.

You're most welcome and thank you.

Thank you for keeping it this long.

I don't think we are completely out of the woods yet, no need of hair on fire either, but there's no reason we should let our guard down.

The fact that RFK is "allegedly" is under a lot of fire now might show that: he is standing in between us and some crazy measures stuff.

For me when something gets the "conspiracy" flag, it means that none of the narratives there are true about the subject and the usual propaganda is not working and there is a lot of smoke around the subject.

https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/what-did-candace-owens-say-about-rfk-jr-blackmail-conspiracy-theory-explained-article-151315617

I plan on keeping these weekly posts going as long as they get a significant number of comments. When and if it drops to >20 comments a week, I'll consider wrapping it up, or go monthly at that point.

thanks, as others have noted, for keeping this going. though i've fallen foul of the moderation hammer once or twice in these getting for 5 years, i appreciate the time you take to herd cats. 3 cheers, arch druid.

Thanks again!

I say the same

Here's a video that is taking off in Canada regarding certain politicians and their ties to the WEF and China.

It's brilliant AI but as one comment said - it would be amusing if it wasn't so true!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-3V158xtmg

Liam in Toronto

I should add that the title of the song is "No Receipts, Just Jets".

It is on You Tube but probably also on other similar sites such as Bitchute or Rumble.

Liam in Toronto

Sometimes I'd call Murica, Mexico Norte but perhaps that award should go to Canada instead.

Just seen on twitter https://x.com/drawandstrike/status/1911474231549796630

"MARKS KNOWS WHAT BOBBY IS GONNA FIND IN THAT FEDERAL DATABASE ON VACCINE DEATHS AND INJURIES. HE KNOWS.

That's why he's making the media rounds right now after he got FIRED for trying to block Bobby & his researcher's access to the database. He's out there FURIOUSLY trying to do damage control. There has been a MASSIVE decades-long COVERUP by our 'public servants' who've been running our government health/medical agencies that were CAPTURED by Big Pharma years n' years ago. RFK Jr. is about to END THE COVER UP.

When he does, American parents are going to be absolutely and completely and utterly and totally OUT FOR BLOOD over what they were TRICKED into doing to their kids with these vaccines. and you can quote me on that."

I'm not so sure. It will be extremely hard for most parents to admit they did something (albeit unwittingly) that damaged their child. I think a lot of them will cling to the idea that it's just bad luck that their child is autistic etc. Also, people who consider themselves smart find it very hard to admit that they were duped. I don't think there will be any lynching of those responsible for vaccine injuries. We will lucky if any of them get convicted and spend even one day in prison.

A recent podcast(#421) from Jim Kunstler had Chris Martenson on, and he was asking about getting to the "data" - which is around somewhere - showing Covid Vax Status vs side effects and reactions and current health.

Yeah, folks will get emotional over kids getting injured from the mandatory series of Jabs pre-Covid, but the injuries and deaths have been much greater post-Covid since the MRNA shots are so much worse.

But I certainly agree that up until now, justice seems very elusive.

I'm not sure the MRNA ones are worse. They're both awful in different ways. RFK Jr was on Fox talking about how California has the best data and 1 in 20 kids there is now autistic so that's probably the true figure for the US as a whole. For boys, it's 1 in 12.5 and it's even worse if you're a black boy. It was 1 in 10,000 when he was a kid. He also points out that of those now affected, 25% of them have extreme autism, ie non-verbal and they will need care for their entire lives. He also rubbishes the canard that people in the past were too stupid to notice if their child was autistic - the data simply doesn't support this notion.

Thread here https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1913075654251118789

Here is a bit of (serious) fun... :)

I have copied an entire passage from my copy of a 1975 facsimile reprint of the 1656 "Englished" edition of The Archidoxes of Magic by Paracelsus.

This passage is entitled "On Imagination" and grouped with others under the general heading of "Occult Philosophy".

It contains alchemical stuff which goes over my head, but personally I was struck by the image of fearful news "piercing through the skin" and in that way, entering the imagination. Also, by the way the passage confirms the wisdom of keeping news and social media off (or at least well turned down low). And finally, how it emphasises the value of this forum (and any other similar gatherings) for "comforting" one another and easing us out of our fearful imaginings. However the "joy and mirth" that is also commended is worth pursuing. :)

Without further ado:

Archidoxes of Magic, by Paracelsus, Englished by R. Turner, 1656

"What powerful operation the Imagination hath, and how the same cometh to its exaltation, may be seen by an example taken from experience in the time of pestilence, wherein the Imagination poysoneth more than any infected Aire; and against which, no Antidote, neither of Mithridate nor Treacle, nor any such preservative, can exhibit any helpe; unless that such an imagination do pass away and be forgotten, nothing else will helpe. So quick and swift a Runner and Messenger is the Imagination that it doth not onely fly out of one house into another, out of one streete into another, but also most swiftly passeth from one City and Country into another; so that by the Imagination onely of one person, the Pestilence may come into some whole City or Country, and kill many thousands of men: as may be understood by this example.

"Put case there were two brothers dearly loving one another, and one of them lives in France and the other travels into Italy, who is taken away by Pestilence in the middle way, and newes should be brought to the brother living in France, that his brother in Italy was dead of the Plague; at which he being affrighted, it pierceth through his Skin, into his imagination, so that he cannot forget it; and it is kindled in him, and this fire doth so long reverberate and worke, as it may be seen in the tryal of Gold and Silver, which do send forth their flowers so long, until they shine bright again; which is not until they are perfectly cleare, and separated from the other impure Metals: After the same manner also the Imagination striketh back, and worketh itself unto the highest degree, and there will be a relucency thereof, now it is received in a vessel in the man, as the sperme of a man is received in the Matrix of the woman, whereby the conception of the woman immediately follows.

"So doth the Pestilence go from one to another, so long till it spread over a whole City or Country: It is good therefore to keep far off; not because of any corrupt or infected Aire, for it infects not the Aire (as some ignorant people say), but that they may not see or heare the operations of the Pestilence, which may infect their mindes. But those people to whom any such newes is reported as beforesaid, ought not to be left alone, neither must they be suffered to muse silently within themselves, whereby Imagination may labour in their mindes; but they are to be comforted, and the Imagination is to be expelled from their mindes, by exciting them to mirth and joy.

"Neither let any think I speak of this as a fable, as though it should seem to be a light business; neither is the remedy so easie for opprest Imaginations; for the Imagination is, as it were, pitch, which easily cleaveth and sticketh, and soone taketh fire, which being kindled, is not so easily extinguished: wherefore the onely remedy to resist the Pestilence in such men is to quench and expel the force of the Imagination."

Further to the above, when I looked up the terms Mithridate and Treacle, I was led to articles about ancient "cure all" remedies. Mithridate was called an antidote against all poisons, named after a king who, reportedly, used his prisoners as experimental guinea pigs while perfecting the complicated formula containing 64 ingredients of animal, vegetable and mineral origin. Treacle (or more properly "Venetian Treacle") was a name English apothecaries in R Turner's time would have given to a similar cure-all remedy known as Theriac. Like Mithridate, it contained many expensive ingredients and took a long time to mature to full potency, and was therefore a luxury item sought after by the rich.

Here is a fascinating paper entitled: "Venetian treacle and the foundation of medicines regulation", J. P. Griffin, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2004.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2004.02147.x

I bet they were as effective as our modern day "cure all" remedy, vaccines. That is to say, not at all.

Or, possibly, AS effective as the Imagination so stimulated was capable of enacting. :)

Apparently, they were sometimes prepared in long, complicated, public ceremonies, which may have been a great help to said Imaginations. Also, things that we pay a great deal to obtain sometimes do work on our Imaginations in a beneficial way - we have made our bargain, and some part of us may strive to keep our part of it.

Excellent read, thanks for sharing!

I'm also reading Paracelsus. I have a hard time understanding his writings. Your quote above about the plague is unusally clear. What can you share about recommended editions or translations?

All I can tell you is that I have only begun dipping my toe into his writings... But I have been working through a few thought threads on clinical matters and his name kept coming up. Apparently some homeopathic theories are lifted from him, just for example. But also, the idea of using toxic substances as medicines is also attributed to him, as is the saying "the dose is the poison". So, what I recently did was purchase the two texts that seemed to contain his own writings (as opposed to other people writing about him) and start slogging my way through. Some of it, particularly the astronomy and alchemy references (which I know are more familiar to other commenters here, and to our host) mostly go over my head. But he had some refreshingly confident ideas on medical ethics which I am appreciating a great deal. Also, it seems to me his work would be very compatible with a Christian, but not necessarily Catholic, approach to occultism.

Anyway, the books I purchased are:
1. the one I cite from above - from Ibis Press, Berwick, ME, 1975 (reprinted 2004) a facsimile reprint of Robert Turner's 1656 translation of "The Archidoxes of Magic." This is literally a facsimile reprint of pages as they appeared in 1656 - complete with the "s" that looks like an "f"... so, a little difficult at first, but you get into the swing of it, and it is not very long. The last part of it is about constructing talismans from various metals under various astrological influences, with various symbols inscribed on them, which means very little to me personally just now. Still, I am finding lots of passages worth contemplating.

2. From the Johns Hopkins University Press, 1941 (reprinted 1996), an edited, and freshly translated set of treatises, entitled "Paracelsus: Four Treatises." Henry E Sigerist is the main editor, and also the translater of "A Book on Nymphs, Sylphs, Pygmies and Salamanders and on the Other Spirits" which he also introduces. The other three treatises, each translated and introduced by a different scholar, are as follows: "Seven Defensiones, The Reply to Certain Columniations of his Enemies" (C. Lilian Tempkin). This is a well written and passionate rant on the subject of "those trying to cancel me are wrong, and here's why" - which is interesting because 600 or so years later, he is still known and indeed famous, and those who at the time really did try to cancel him for his "misinformation" and other heresies are no longer remembered. There is "On the Miners' Sickness and other Miners' Diseases" (George Rosen). This is possibly the first treatment of occupational disease risk, incidence, and its treatment. It is detailed, and discusses the different ways in which different aspects of mining and metallurgy expose people to disease via vapours and via direct handling. His concept of both disease and appropriate treatment develops his personal theme of "separating the pure from the impure" - the first leading to health, the second to disease, and the fact that both are present in every substance. Finally, there is "The Diseases that Deprive Man of his Reason, such as St Vitus' Dance, Falling Sickness, Melancholy, and Insanity and their correct treatment" (Gregory Zilboorg), which I have not yet read, but which I gather tried to put mental/emotional illness and health into the domain of medicine, rather than leave it entirely within the domain of the clergyman.

So, no, I cannot make general recommendations, but, for what it is worth, this is the project I am in the middle of. Be well. :)

Thank the Gods for banishing rituals that strengthen thy Skin and keepeth far off the Plague that poysoneth the Aire! The Imagination striketh back not long after the circle casteth and worketh the minde to the highest degree for freight none to see. So doth the Pestilence consumeth the affreighted, and sure they were, salvation hath being handed by the pierceth Skin, or so the fetith Imagination whispereth and comforthed the freight that twisteth the mindes unto the shapes only the corrupthed recognizeth.

Edited 2025-04-16 18:50 (UTC)

Indeed... :)

And it might be the case that piercing the skin *is* an effective route to a person's Imagination - for good or for ill - that is more direct than otherwise might be thought.

And, as you say, that which strengthens the Skin, may also strengthen the Imagination. :)

Given that objects take on the astral imprint of the intention, and the energy of the ones who make it and administer it; and the blood is the bodily equivalent of the astral light... I can see it.

Here’s an update from the Netherlands on Covid and related developments

My general impression is that tensions are high. Many sensitive people seem to have quite a lot of challenges with sleep and emotional, mental or fysical health. Last Monday’s MM saw a lot of talk on strange neurological issues showing up. I was too late to chime in, but my own neurological issues have been bad recently. The past 5-6 weeks I basically had a headache every day. Fellow Dutchman Rintrah shared on his blog that he had such severe acute psychosis that he had to be put in an institution. He seems somewhat better now. My sense is that tensions are still rising and that it becomes ever more difficult to solve everyday conflicts in a constructive manner, but my perception could be colored due to my own struggles.

Dutch organization ANWB reported that this year’s ski season has been brutal. Ski accidents were up +20% from last year which already was a high. The conditions were not especially bad, so they couldn’t give an explanation.

I’ve lost interest in closely following excess mortality but still keep a light tab on it. The general trend is that yearly rates are stable at 8-9% excess mortality compared to pre-Covid rates. Last year saw a declining trend in Q1, but Q2 and Q3 saw an increase such that in Q3 the year so far was the deadliest since the start of the Coof. But Q4 saw a lower than usual excess mortality so that at the end of the year the overall mortality was back at the post-Coof average. My reading of the situation is that we are looking at long-term increase of mortality by 8-9% and that the lower mortality in Q4 can be explained by a pull-forward effect from Q2 and Q3.

More interesting is a breakdown of the mortality in age and gender. Statistician Herman Steigstra did just that. He found that most mortality is in the under 60 yrs category and that the eldest ages have no excess mortality at all. Especially women ages 30-50 are hit hard (+20-30%). Excess mortality in the younger age categories doesn’t show any sign of abating, ominously it actually seems to increase.

The Dutch parliament recently discussed excess mortality with the deputy minister for Health Karremans. Out of 150 members of parliament, no less than 3 MP’s engaged on the subject. They were all from coalition parties. The opposition didn’t even bother to attend the meeting. Two proposals were submitted. One asking for investigation of the excess mortality amongst women 30-50 while the other caught the manipulation of the baseline expectation mortality and wanted Karremans to discuss this with health agency RIVM. Karremans rejected the first proposal because “the numbers weren’t coming from scientists” (abject nonsense of course) and made no serious commitment to the second. A few days later the second proposal was accepted by parliament but it’s clear there won’t be any real action coming from it. All in all a very disappointing showing.

The larger point here is that I notice that issues are not being solved any more and that politics and media focus on irrelevant nonsense to give the populace the illusion that they are working at things. Three weeks ago the coalition almost fell and the media and politicians were screaming from the top of their lungs about it. The issue was embarrassingly irrelevant: a minister didn’t want to give 5 people a non-financial award. Seriously, that was all! In the same week it was announced that 5 refineries and 2 chemical plants are going to shut down, but nobody had time for it. Same with the announcement that Tata Steel is going to downsize 1600 jobs. The deindustrialization is gaining speed and nobody in The Hague notices. If I were in a leadership position I would wonder what 800B euro’s investment in weapons is going to do if we don’t have basic industries to produce steel, fuel and chemicals. Maybe we’re gonna fight the Russians with crossbows? The way it’s going my country will resemble Zimbabwe very fast, of course after the obligatory economic crash followed by civil war. It looks like the issues with the vax will go unnoticed. Soon we will have such immense problems that nobody will care.

I know this is a bit off topic, but since Tata Steel was already mentioned, has everyone heard about British Steel? The company, with the last blast furnace in the U.K. that produces high-strength virgin steel, was bought by a Chinese company several years ago. That company now wants to shut the plant down, saying it's not economical, and refuses to bring in material to keep the blast furnace running. (Apparently, if you ever shut the thing down after it has begun operation, it is effectively impossible to restart again. I have no idea why.) After negotiations with the company failed, the Brits are moving to nationalize it this month to keep it going--for the moment.

But, they're saying it still may be converted to producing a lower grade of steel with different equipment, and that could not be reversed. This would leave them without a domestic supply of the high-quality steel needed for tall buildings and similar things (like maybe warships?). It is easy to suspect that the original purchase was part of a long-term strategy by China to remove that industrial capacity from the U.K.

Also, the Welsh are p*ssed because the blast furnace operated there was allowed to be shut down years ago with no such effort to save it.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that background. The Chinese have been buying key infrastructure for years now. Panama Canal, harbours of Athens and Hamburg, etc. I'm sure it is no coincidence.

Crazy that the British government let the Chinese have such critical infrastructure as British Steel. They live in an alternate reality where it's still 1995 and the US will always protect us and we grow rich by globalizing all of our capital. And the experts (science) are always right and trustworthy, so no need to think about the wisdom of lockdowns or inquire into the safety of a new vaccine. If you do ask such inappropriate questions you can kiss your career goodbye so only followers of the system will rise to the top.

Actually, the Chinese company invested one billion dollars in upgrading the facility, but carbon taxes and the high price of energy due to the cut off of Russian energy has made the plant uneconomical. In fact, the company claims that the plant loses 1 million dollars a day, and the British government act compels the Chinese company to continue running the plant at a loss, until a buyer can be found.

Blast furnaces and cement kilns need a rebuild after shutdown as the refractory lining can't tolerate the stresses from expansion/contraction during thermal cycling.

Have you seen anyone having trouble staying on their bicycle? Anyone accidentally fall into a canal?

No. Only skiing seems more hazardous. The numbers of lethal accidents in traffic show a peak in 2022 and then a decline in 2023 and 2024. The levels are still higher than pre-coof though and the decline in 2024 comes only from men as women saw an uptick. I don't have any numbers on 2025 so there we only have anecdote.

Ok, I dug a little deeper and found various reports that show contradictory numbers, so I had to look at how these numbers are assembled. The way accidents are registered is quite complex. This site has the best, most encompassing info: https://www.star-verkeersongevallen.nl/en-GB/Map#5.1939/52.1097/6.0000/0.0000/0

For 2025 there is a strong increase compared to 2024 but unfortunately they don't give the comparable number for 2024 so I can't put a number on it.

boccaccio, are you in the Randstad, by any chance?

I'm not, and I haven't noticed the same level of stress around me, but I have friends that live in Amsterdam and they have been quite stressed-out the past few months. So I thought, maybe location has something to do with it?

(For people who don't know the Netherlands: the Randstad is the urban blob in the west of the country that contains, among others, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague)

i saw someone posting these two articles together..

what are the odds of this..?

US company wants to ‘resurrect’ mammoths
Colossal Biosciences is editing genes and working on artificial wombs, its CEO has said

https://www.rt.com/news/611020-startup-reviving-mammoth-dodo/

WHO rehearses deadly ‘mammothpox’ outbreak – Telegraph
An exercise by the UN agency earlier this month simulated an outbreak of a “fictional” virus spreading across the world

https://www.rt.com/news/615794-who-exercise-mammothpox-outbreak/

Some Siberian explorers once cut and ate steaks off a however-many-thousand-year-old frozen mammoth emerging from permafrost. You hope they cooked it very well. Blech. Imagine what kind of bugs and parasites it might still have.

I bet few will even notice.

After all, in my experience almost nobody acknowledged the other genetically engineered elephant that showed up in the room four years ago.

*Ochre Harebrained Curmudgeon*

lol. Thanks for the laugh

OHC— thanks for the elephantine 2x lol

Queensland Government to destroy ‘globally significant’ Covid vaccine study biobank

https://canberradaily.com.au/queensland-government-to-destroy-globally-significant-covid-vaccine-study-biobank/

a coverup of some kind..?

Definitely a cover-up, and I wouldn't be surprised if the pressure to do so came from a higher level than the Queensland (and even Australian) government.

If "covid" cases were simply a byproduct of PCR testing, and if the vaccines were useless or not even vaccines at all, then this kind of study would prove this.

True?

"HEARTBREAKING: Massachusetts just kidnapped 5 children from parents who refused to vaccinate their 9-month-old baby.

When the parents fled the state to protect their family, they were ARRESTED.

This is one of the darkest stories of the year.

THREAD 🧵

1/ Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion are homeschooling parents of five.

They told their pediatrician they were skipping vaccines for their baby.

They cited religious reasons.

Days later, DCF showed up at their door.
"

https://x.com/sheislaurenlee/status/1911904139958714869

Don't start a family in a blue state?

Incredibly, it is actually the parents who face the kidnapping charges!

https://leohohmann.substack.com/p/parents-accused-of-kidnapping-their

If it were me, I'd go to a cash only doctor for emergencies and skip the "well baby" visits and other checkups. And should the doctor ask about any jabs, I would make vague polite noises, or maybe even lie ("we got them all up to date when we were in [name other country]").

But hey, that's just me, I don't have kids, and nobody seems to want my advice these days anyway.

Seriously, I was raised to be "responsible" and get all my regular checkups. Did that, and paid for gold-plated health insurance, for decades. To me, it was unthinkable to not get checkups, unthinkable to give up health insurance. Had someone suggested that, I would have thought they were crackpot bonkers. Finally in 2021, when I saw my doctor's clinic's hallway full up with cases of Moderna jabs, I figured it out. Now I take zero prescription meds, walk a lot, eat well, drink dendelion tea (& etc), breathe deeply, hug trees, and yeehaw, feel pretty good. All that money I spent on health insurance, that now goes into my self-insurance savings fund and monthly massage treatments.

What I would tell young parents (if any ever wanted to listen to my advice): When dealing with doctors, teachers, or anyone from the government having anything at all to do with your children, always dress and act like you can afford a good lawyer. If you have a relative who's a lawyer, or even studying to be a lawyer, don't hesitate to mention that, not aggressively, but do slip it in casually. Works wonders.

Ahem.

This is not a general forum for anything unacceptable to CNN, or what have you. It exists to facilitate discussion of the Covid-19 fiasco and issues directly relevant to it, subject to the rules listed in the opening post.

Today I've deleted one attempted comment going on about David Icke's theories and another about the British justice system. Neither of these had anything to do with Covid-19, or vaccines, or anything connected with them. Both were anonymous, and both were deleted. (It's not impossible that both were deliberate attempts at forum dilution -- I could well imagine rent-a-trolls being hired to do that, now that safety issues surrounding vaccination are getting more publicity.) One way or another, though, off topic comments will be deleted. 'Nuf said.

Thank you. That's why many of us keep coming back. Honestly, I often save your posts to read after a dose of all the nasty on most other sites that allow comments. Sort of a mind-cleansing. A heavy sigh of relief that there's still somewhere to go that's not crazy.

Cover-up caught on camera! ER staff at

bswhealth
call security on

berkeley4peace
after admitting shots cause heart damage.

https://x.com/MdBreathe/status/1912126055453749495#m

from comments

Berkeley Institute for Peace and Prosperity

berkeley4peace
Apr 15
Replying to

mdbreathe

bswhealth
I just want to note, if you’re not following this closely, this is the same hospital system that fired

p_mcculloughmd a looooooong time ago for discussing the risks here. Our activism is necessary to support the truth tellers and dissidents that keep western civilization intact

CDC Advisers Consider Recommending Narrower Use Of COVID-19 Vaccines

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/cdc-advisers-consider-recommending-narrower-use-covid-19-vaccines

i have read this, but i cant figure out if it is a good thing or not..

It is good only if "narrow" is limited to Fauci being boosted daily -

https://rumble.com/vv9hwr-dr-faucis-explanation-on-the-booster-shots.html

I think his immune system definitely needs more stimulation, though I admit my sense of how to administer it tends more toward public flogging.

I think it's a good thing. They can't just admit, "Hey, we were totally wrong, look how much covid there is, obviously these shots don't work at all and they're super-dangerous." So they gradually walk back their guidance. Here, in Australia, they now say "most" people only need one shot. But of course a lot of people have had eleven or whatever they're up to now. And they no longer recommend them at all for under-18s. They want to gradually walk away and pretend it all never happened.

I hope that's the first step in the right direction. Corporate and bureaucratic types are primarily concerned with avoiding responsibility for anything. That's why policy changes are always framed as "there is nothing wrong, and that's why this complete reversal is actually no change at all, because why would we change anything when there is nothing wrong." And if anything is wrong, it is important to blame it on someone who no longer works there. Former employees function as scapegoats, taking all of the past sins of the organization with them when they leave.

That link is to a story about ACIP, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises to CDC. I suspect they're trying to cover their tooshes, a little bit, and way, way, way, way, way oh way too late.

From the article:

"The CDC currently recommends all Americans aged 6 months and older receive one of the available COVID-19 vaccines, even if they have been vaccinated in the past."

My vote is for bad. If this is a checkpoint of the whole debacle, it shows how much attrition is involved in getting the official .gov recommendations to change. We're well aware of the harm of the Jabs, the ineffectiveness of the Jabs, and how they're not required or banned in other countries. And we've known this for four years now.

I'm still in the camp of some other emergency will come along to eclipse the last remaining focus for criminal charges.

A couple of weeks ago, some people posting on this thread we're talking about "letting go". I won't be doing that, but I will freely admit accepting responsibility and dealing with reality over the shots is a challenge for many.

Letting go? This whole cooties madness changed me. I'm not the same person I was in January 2020. I really don't see any way back. I don't think "letting go" is an option.

slinky weasel, I'm with you on this. This covidian catastrophe changed me, too, there's no going back, and not only is it not OK, it will never be OK. I myself may heal from the trauma, I am healing now— I know I can experience joy, I can live a good life. But as I say, what happened is not OK, and it will never be OK.

People such as myself may be a minority, but there are nonetheless many of us. And our deeply rooted refusal to "accept and move on" is something that I think of many other people, apparently the large majority, at least in my circles, do not recognize. They literally cannot see my point of view. They cannot even imagine my point of view.

They believed all that they were told by Dr. Fauci & co., they took a bunch of "vaccines," they wore the masks, stuff happened, lock downs, all that, blah blah, and now it's over. They don't want to think about it. They certainly don't want to get within a country mile of discussing any of it. And they seem to think that, "if we act like it's not a thing, it's not a thing,"— not a thing for them, nor for anyone else either.

How very wrong they are.

Cetiosaurus

Let's face it. I'm not THAT different than before. I'm still me. I have a lot less trust now, in media, in my friends, in the society around me. And that sucks. But I also feel like it was some kind of test, and that I did well. I learned a greater measure of myself.

I think this relates to the covid jabs— orthogonally, anyway. RFK's speech today on C-span about autism is major:

https://informedchoice.substack.com/p/secretary-kennedy-has-just-busted

(that's a link to the approx 10 minute-long clip of the C-span video via Australian medical freedom activist Meryl Dorey's substack)

So the autisim epidemic is real. It's horrific. It's not an artifact of better reporting, as RFK makes clear. I doubt that the legacy media will report much of this straight, if at all. But too many people have autistic children, and most of the rest of us don't have seen the increasing prevalance of autisim up close. This elephant of a story hasn't got any place to hide.

Don't think it was the Froot Loops.

anecdotally, my wife teaches teenagers; she's noticed that each new year seems to be getting worse. her youngest class consists of kids where about half have some form of dys-something. i would guess that the reported figures for kids damaged by vaccines greatly under-reports the reality.

This is not new, though prolonged lockdown exacerbated it. Before the pandemic, a quarter of all American teenage girls got put on psych meds, and a quarter of all boys were labeled ADHD by age 17. There's a combination of (a) real increase in problems from environmental toxin exposures; (b) real increase in problems from suffocating bubble-wrap parenting [problems caused by a lifetime of screen staring fall into both of these]; and (c) the medical establishment's labeling every minor who has unpleasant feelings or resists doing what he/she is told as a lifelong mental defective.

Oh, and in the "dys" category, "dyslexia" doubles when schools fashionably refuse to use phonics, since it turns out that most kids who haven't learned to read before age 6 never will learn to read fluently if taught by idiotic whole-language methods. I think it fair to surmise that a fair fraction of "dyscalculia" could be due to sh***y math teaching methods as well. I have a relative whose family home-schooled their kids and while this left them obviously deficient in some ways (they were trained to believe that the earth was 6000 years old), the kid who had been labeled dyslexic was able to use a special brain-retraining course that left her able to read easily. On balance I thought that was a plus; if she ever develops the desire to read something that isn't the bible, at least she'll be able to.

About RFK's conference on austism today. It is important to know— though the mainstream media isn't reporting this— that RFK's focus was on the kids who have severe autisum, some 25% of them now, and who cannot speak, use the toilet, etc. Not the "on the spectrum" autistic kids, but the far more serious, debilitating cases, and which have been becoming much more common in recent years.

Attorney Jeff Childers goes into more detail in his post for today.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/hypersonic-thursday-april-17-2025

Childers may not be everyone's cup of tea (he's a Born Again Christian and pro Trump) but no matter what you think of his religious and political ideas, I think what Childers had to say today about RFK's autism conference merits attending to.

here is an update from Tamara Lich:

We weren’t able to secure a date yesterday for the sentencing hearing and instead another ‘speak to’ was set for April 28. In addition to time needed to enter numerous impact statements (coincidentally and conveniently comprised of individuals suing us for $300,000,000.00), the Crown has added a forfeiture order to seize Big Red which will add significant time to argue. Therefore I suspect all parties will need to find 4-5 days in their schedules for the sentencing hearing.

The Crown is also seeking two years in federal prison for each of us.

Three days were tentatively set aside at the end of May for a Stay of Proceedings application put forth yesterday by Ms. Magus on Chris’ behalf.

And so The Longest Mischief Trial of All Time continues to plod along, still no end in sight.

https://x.com/LichTamara/status/1912863040078233630#m

This is absolutely unconscionable. Big Red is not 'just' a symbol of the Freedom Convoy - it is the means for Chris Barber to earn a living (he is the owner of a family-operated trucking business). This is like locking up a carpenter's shop so that he can't ply his trade. And for no reason other than spite. Rubbing salt into the wounds. Just when one thinks that lawfare cannot get any worse, TPTB raise the bar yet again...

Three years ago I had a vision of a bronze Big Red monument in Ottawa. Now I am certain that it will happen. It is just a matter of time and the turning of the Wheel of Fate.

Honk honk!

Ron M

both of his books - "tools for conviviality" and "medical nemesis" are insightful. Interestingly they are gone from our public library although the one on homeschooling remains.

"Most curable sickness can now be diagnosed and treated by laymen. People find it so difficult to accept this statement because the complexity of medical ritual has hidden from them the simplicity of its basic procedures. It took the example of the barefoot doctor in China to show how modern practice by simple workers in their spare time could, in three years, catapult health care in China to levels unparalleled elsewhere. In most other countries health care by laymen is considered a crime. A seventeen-year-old friend of mine was recently tried for having treated some 130 of her high-school colleagues for VD. She was acquitted on a technicality by the judge when expert counsel compared her performance with that of the U.S. Health Service. Nowhere in the U.S.A. can her achievement be considered “standard,” because she succeeded in making retests on all her patients six weeks after their first treatment. Progress should mean growing competence in self-care rather than growing dependence.

The possibilities of lay therapy also run up against our
commitment to “better” health, and have blinded us to the
distinction between curable and incurable sickness. This is a
crucial distinction because as soon as a doctor treats incurable
sickness, he perverts his craft from a means to an end. He
becomes a charlatan set on providing scientific consolation in a
ceremony in which the doctor takes on the patient’s struggle
against death. The patient becomes the object of his ministrations
instead of a sick subject who can be helped in the process of
healing or dying. Medicine ceases to be a legitimate profession
when it cannot provide each man or his next of kin with the tool to
make this one crucial differential diagnosis for himself."

MAKARY: "Today we are announcing we are removing pharma members from FDA advisory committees ... We are going to be inviting pharma companies to send representatives to the advisory committees, but they can sit with the rest of the public and watch and pose questions"

https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1912947217473626610#m

short clip at link

!!!!!!!
Love this

There were pharma members as part of the FDA advisory committees!?

Indeed this was so.

Whenever I ask myself, why are we so messed up, I will stop wondering. If such an obvious conflict of interest is right there in the open, I don't trust anybody making decisions on that front.

Dr. John Campbell had a guest on recently that discussed the similarities between allergy treatment and getting boosters with the same ingredients over and over. He said that when you treat an allergy you give small doses of the allergen to the patient over a time period and they desensitize the patient to that allergen. He said that it could be possible that when you give the same "vaccine" over and over again, you are making the patient become desensitized to the ingredients of the booster and thus end up having negative efficacy to the treatment.
So to me, it looks like one vaccine sensitizes you to the disease and it makes you fight it better and many boosters de-sensitizes you to the disease and your body cannot fight it off any longer.

This is an extremely important point, but not a new argument. I heard this mentioned, when the IgG4-related papers came out in 2022. Several people argued at that time that repeated boosting would lead to developing immune tolerance for the virus, which is exactly opposite to what the vaxx-pushers were proposing.

Came across this article shortly after the fifth anniversary of the Covid lockdowns. Old hat for most of us here but thought I it was worth sharing.

https://jennifersey.substack.com/p/the-5-year-anniversary-of-covid-lockdowns

There’s a certain amount of lunacy that I think has been forgotten and because of that, it makes me wonder if it can happen all over again. I want to say no but it’s more like who knows.

good article. I agree with the sentiment -

"We are not done. Not by a long shot. What went wrong was EVERYTHING. And I, for one, won’t stop shouting about it until that is acknowledged, apologized for and until those people who did the wrong thing over and over again are de-fanged and de-clawed."

Yeah. That's what scares me too. The cooties madness really showed how fast the society around me can go crazy. Remember when there was no toilet paper? Now I'm worried how easily that could happen again.

i just saw this posted

THE ORIGIN

“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/

Week 193

Thank you, JMG, and thank you forumistas.

I may be the 11th person to post this, but here goes:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/

This is the official page for the Us President. He's calling covid 19 a lab leak. I found out about this via el gato— very interesting to see gato's take on it:

breaking news: here it comes
the white house just declared war on the covid conspirators
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/breaking-news-here-it-comes

My hot take: people are going to be arguing until Kingdom Come about viruses and conspiracy theories and the jabs (and that DJT promoted them, etc etc), but this does constitute a major, very concrete step. The White House is going after those who engaged in unauthorized gain of function research and who then lied about it.

Yes, many Americans have Trump Derangement Syndrome (I know what it looks like, I have some in my own family), so Trump could say, "boo" and they would say "bah." But I think that there are now way too many people, all across the political spectrum, who know perfectly well that the lockdowns were wrong, that the masks were just theater, the mandates were outrageous, and the jabs have been useless, except to kill and injure large numbers of the people who take them. I think this is going to turn into a real shalestorm.

Since this is the forum that it is, I'll go further and say I can sense the shalestorm on the astral. It's a feeding bonanza for negs. Banishing crucial.

Cetiosaurus

When I read the Bad Cat's article, I remembered a vision a clairvoyant had a few years back that was reported on here by JMG. The clairvoyant saw in the month of May the rage of the people and the physical tearing apart of someone. I can't remember the details exactly, but I do remember a couple of Mays went by and it didn't happen. There was some talk here of the month being right but not necessarily the year we were expecting it to happen.

I also remember JMG saying to look out for a sudden change in everyone's thinking as a sign the energies from the divine that had been working their way down the planes has finally hit the human world. I was also a little shocked to see Fauci's picture on the White House's page and the seeming mockery of the pardon. If there was an attempt to direct the rage, this would be it.

So, here we are in April, the White House has posted this declaration on their website, the shalestorm has now moved down to the astral, everything seems to be lining up and things are heating up. A couple more official announcements and things might really go off the rails.

If this is the correct year, brace yourself.

-Myriam

OK, I'm seeing this pushed a lot. Let's say it leaked out of China.

Did China mandated the mRNA waxxine in US, Europe and the five eyes countries?

Since they haven't done it, it's not a conspiracy theory, but I am predicting the next narrative, I see this as a push for the cancer mRNA waxxine on a long arc:

- they will say China leaked it.

- they will say that they wanted to do good with the mRNA spike, but it was because of the variants, or other excuses

- they will say there is a need for a fix.

they = TPTB

Edited 2025-04-19 16:34 (UTC)

This won't surprise anyone on this forum, but for the record:

BREAKING: New UCSF study shows vaccinated 6x more likely to be hospitalized than unvaxxed.
Nearly 30,000 people were surveyed. You had a 6X greater risk of hospitalization post vaccine than post infection. This is a disaster and should cause the vaccines to be revoked in any sane society.
Steve Kirsch, Apr 19, 2025
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/breaking-new-ucsf-study-shows-vaccinated

From the beginning of the craziness, I've tried to give some small financial support to researchers and organizations willing to look honestly at the vexes. On a hunch, I just searched my records and was wonderfully surprised to find that I'd sent a few bucks to one of the authors of this paper a few years back.

Since it had been so long, I figured her study had been quashed somehow--the authors are based at UC San Francisco, so there would be massive resistance to any heretical conclusions.

It's still a pre-print, so plenty of dirty tricks are still possible. But I'm very glad to have helped someone still unafraid to follow uncomfortable data to uncomfortable conclusions.

*Ochre Harebrained Curmudgeon*

I just came upon this:

https://x.com/toobaffled/status/1912985376010223822

in which a Dr. Chris Shoemaker, on March 7, 2025, testifies to what appears to be a National Citizens Inquiry in Edmonton Alberta. If I am hearing this right, he claims an 82 times increase in deaths for a jabbed cohort of 10-14 yo children vs unjabbed. He states this is from a double blind study done in 2021 to 2022.

Has this been discussed here and I missed it?

As a scientist (retired), this is the most utterly damning thing I have seen to date. I am simply bowled over by the implications. I am truly shocked. I must now conclude that our society cannot survive this, in anything resembling its current form.

I'd be very interested in other people's thoughts on this.... Cyclone

I can't find any such study by web searching.

This is the NCI video of Dr Shoemaker's testimony:
https://rumble.com/v6qehdy-dr.-chris-shoemaker-mar-07-2025-edmonton-alberta-replay.html

I'll be listening to it later today.

Hello Cyclone— I listened carefully to what Dr. Chris Shoemaker said in that clip. He said it was a UK double blind study from the UK Office for National Statistics, and, to the researchers' surprise, it showed that children aged 10-14 years who received 3 covid jabs were 82 times more likely to die in the 6 months following their jabs than children who received no jabs.

This is Canadian NCI (National Citizens Inquiry) testimony, given under oath.

It surprises me in no way that anyone who searches for this study would have a hard time finding it.

I'm sorry to say, I am not shocked in the least at what Dr. Shoemaker said because damning evidence about the lethality of the jabs and the total contrainducation for giving it to children has been coming out for years, and consistently, such information gets censored, shadow-banned, and its authors smeared / canceled / barred from practising medicine.

P.S. You can find Dr. Shoemaker on Substack and write to him directly.
https://substack.com/@cshoemakermd

This is a real government organization. Its only job seems to be to crunch numbers. They put out some numbers that seemed spun to be pro-vax, so if they had a super-dramatic anti-vax result they might indeed have buried it.

But they would not have conducted a "double-blind" study, which would have meant a prospective study in kids randomized to jabs or no jabs. One of the big objections to the jabs was that there was not only inadequate testing of the first shots in kids, but no real clinical trial at ALL of the booster before they started forcing young people to get it. And this isn't the agency that could have set up such a trial. Therefore I doubt that it exists as such.

Did you ask Dr. Shoemaker?

I remember when the covid injections were rolled out in the uk, children in fragile health were the ones given the covid jab because they were seen as higher risk of being killed or injured by covid infection. So my immediate thought is that the cohort of children who received these injections was skewed towards those who were in any case at higher risk of dying. The joint committee on immunization didn't recommend all children get the covid jab although many did.
It's frustrating trying to be precise with the data as I know of so many deaths and injuries that seem clearly associated with these jabs. But in this case of the ONS data on children after covid vaccination there is probably and additional factor in the mix in the prioritisation of very sick children to receive the vaccine.
Umber Peevish Anteater

Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 193

Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Summoning the demon

And yes synthetic biology sheds, enzyme, cells, etc shed from people's clothes, perfumes, etc

Re: Summoning the demon

Re: Randomized clinical trial

Re: Randomized clinical trial

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Effective Immediately IVM Is OTC in Idaho

Re: Effective Immediately IVM Is OTC in Idaho

Re: Effective Immediately IVM Is OTC in Idaho

Re: Effective Immediately IVM Is OTC in Idaho

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

how 'bout the Covid database revealed?

Re: how 'bout the Covid database revealed?

Paracelsus, On the Imagination (as a cause of Pestilence)

Re: Paracelsus, On the Imagination (as a cause of Pestilence)

Re: Paracelsus, On the Imagination (as a cause of Pestilence)

Re: Paracelsus, On the Imagination (as a cause of Pestilence)

Re: Paracelsus, On the Imagination (as a cause of Pestilence)

Re: Paracelsus, On the Imagination (as a cause of Pestilence)

Re: Paracelsus, On the Imagination (as a cause of Pestilence)

Re: Paracelsus, On the Imagination (as a cause of Pestilence)

Re: Paracelsus, On the Imagination (as a cause of Pestilence)

Update fron the Netherlands

Re: Update fron the Netherlands