Forestluv

@Consept I wouldn’t say he is entirely incorrect. There are some scientific studies showing a link. That meta-analysis listed several studies. This doesn’t surprise me as there are various forms of vaccines and some specific vaccines are likely one of many inputs that can contribute to neuropsychiatric conditions. This is to be expected since some vaccines contain trace heavy metals, which we know without a doubt causes neuropsychiatric conditions. However, most vaccines appear to be a low risk for most people. So rather than saying the belief is “wrong”, I would say that the belief is overstated. This is super common in science. Scientists love to overstate conclusions.

@DrewNows Like I said, there is a very easy way to test if pathogenic microbes are real. To test if pathogenic microbes are real, one simply needs to pump themselves up with mycobacterium tuberculosis and viral Ebola. . . . There is no need to get twisted in a pretzel. No one is willing to pump themselves full of the deadliest pathogenic bacteria because they know the consequences. They wouldn’t even do it for a million dolllars, because they know they would suffer a horrific death. Just like no one would be willing to test if gravity is real by jumping off a building. It’s easy to create all sorts of thought stories, yet when it comes down to actually testing it, I guarantee you that NONE of the people claiming pathogenic microbes are illusory will volunteer to test their story. Think about it. . . Those claiming pathogenic microbes are illusory can easily demonstrate the truth of their claim by pumping themselves full of the deadliest “illusory” pathogenic microbes. Such a straightforward test that would clearly demonstrate this truth to all of their followers. . . Yet they would never do it. . . They rely on a gullible audience (in this context, they have some value in other contexts).

Mentioning vaccines in the discussion does NOT count as a scientific study or evidence. Above, I went through the first ten links. Of these: 8/10 were not vaccine studies. They are completely removed from vaccines, show zero empirical data related to vaccines and nothing can be inferred about vaccines in these articles / studies. 1/10 was a pilot study that implied a temporal correlation between vaccines and autism. Yet the authors themselves stress that this is a pilot study that is merely suggestive and no causative conclusions can be made. 1/10 showed a statistically significant correlation between ONE specific vaccine and autism. So about 80% of what you consider “evidence” is not evidence at all. It didn’t even involve vaccines. 10% of what you consider evidence is weak suggestive evidence and 10% of what you consider evidence is actual significant empirical evidence. So only about 10% of what you are considering evidence, is actual empirical evidence (for ONE specific vaccine). This is a very low efficiency. Imagine scoring 10% on an exam. . . If you want to improve your efficiency, I would examine meta-analyses, because they will analyze the studies that are actually relevant for you. You won’t mis-perceive 80% of what you are seeing to be actual empirical evidence. The meta-analysis I posted above is a broad study that examined evidence that BOTH shows a causal relationship and doesn’t show a causal relationship,. It was conducted by a broad range of the highest experts. If you want to strengthen your argument that there is empirical evidence showing a causative connection, this one article has 10X the power of all the articles you linked combined.

I think the “world of illusion” idea has merit. I think microbes as causative agents can be overplayed and underlying unhealthy conditions (terrain) can be underplayed by many mainstream scientists. . . Scientists want to control the narrative and much of the general population has a “me vs them” mindset, in which “them” are pathogenic microbes. There is much more emphasis on treatment of symptoms, rather than prevention. As well, I think there is a lot to how imagination can lead to a variety of illnesses, in particular neurosis. There are a ton of psycho-somatic related illnesses that people might blame on exogenous agents. And I’d like to see more studies regarding visualization and self healing. For example, visualizing a strong immune system attacking cancer cells. Although, I would speculate that this would be an accessory activity and not itself curative (unless we are talking very high conscious levels). However, even if we give the authors a pass on technical misstatements of cellular biology, there is still a problem I see. If we enter into the nonphysical realm that microbes are illusory, then it’s all illusory. You don’t get to point and say that physical thing over there is illusory, yet this physical thing over here is real. There is as much evidence for the physical nature of pathogenic microbes and there is evidence for the physical nature of your body. If you say that physical microbes are actually nonphysical illusions, then you need to say the human body is also a nonphysical illusion. And that is not what the authors are saying. They are saying that pathogenic microbes are nonphysical illusions, yet the bodily is physical reality. There is a very simple test to reveal this discrepancy. Give me a volunteer that believes pathogenic microbes are a nonphysical illusion and the body is physically real. Someone who has never had a vaccination. You could pick the #1 guy in this area. He has done all the cleansing and detoxes. He is at the highest level of understanding that pathogenic microbes are illusory. . . We then pump him full of Myobacterium Tuberculosis and throw in some Anthrax. I guarantee you he will learn a lot about the the physical properties of pathogenic microbes and his idea of “illusory” microbes will be updated.

I didn’t think I would be contributing to something sinister by registering for access. You are imagining that. Regarding the article links. . . I assume you haven’t previously read those articles (as implied) since you just registered to gain access. Do you realize that most of the studies you linked are not vaccine studies? Did you actually read the abstracts or did you just cut and paste? I’ve been putting in quite a bit of time and effort into this discussion and it’s a bit disheartening that someone posts a bunch of non-vaccine studies I have to filter through. Som, most of those publications are not studies of vaccinations. They are heavy metal studies that do not involve vaccinations and make no claims about vaccinations. As well, notice the physiological relevance. In most of those studies, the level of heavy metal dosages are not physiologically relevant to the trace dosages in vaccines. As well, many of the studies you linked were studies of how genetics, epigenetics and immune function relate to autism. They did not involve vaccinations. Inferences would be multiple corollary steps removed and would not count as evidence by even the lowest standards of evidence. As well, several of the studies linked did not support a significant causative relationship to vaccines and autism, while others showed a link for “high risk” individuals, yet no significant link to the general population. Overall, by looking down the abstracts: most of the articles linked are not vaccine studies and no inferences to vaccines can be responsibly made. Such inferences would be speculation several steps removed. And other articles showed a significant causal relationship of vaccines - autism in “high risk” individuals. A couple articles showed a significant causation between a specific vaccine and autism, yet this cannot be extrapolated as a general characteristic of vaccines. . . All of these articles are consistent with the scientific community consensus: that there are risks for a minority “high risk” individuals, yet no consistent significantly significant risks for the general population regarding the majority of vaccines. Yet direct causation is a high bar. It is possible that certain vaccines are one of many contributing factors to autism and there are not statistically-significant results because it is one of many factors. Autism is a multi-factorial condition, similar situation to schizophrenia. There is no one thing that causes schizophrenia and it is difficult to identify contributing factors. This also highlights the importance of meta-studies. Meta-studies evaluate many studies collectively to develop a holistic consensus. This would have filter out all the non-related links you posted and showed commonalities between studies. Below is a meta-study that examines studies that showing both adverse vaccine effects and non-adverse vaccine effects. This meta-study was conducted by a committee of scientific experts. I would say that this study is a bit outside the mainstream scientific consensus in that it illustrates considerable risks for multiple vaccines. https://www.nap.edu/resource/13164/Adverseeffectsofvaccinesreportbrief.pdf

Nice observation. I was much more oriented toward a meta view of structure, rather than getting into the weeds of content. This is one of the most challenging things for me in communication. My mind generally likes to take meta-views, look holistically, make inter-connections and various partially-true perspectives. Yet I’ve noticed that most minds I interact with prefer to get immersed in content in which there are two opposing views. It’s not that one is necessarily better, yet it makes communication very difficult. For example, I often find myself saying “I don’t disagree with you” because my mind naturally sees partial truths in various perspectives and isn’t firmly attached to any single perspective. . . As well, I’ve got this desire to reveal different views to people. For me, this is exploration, discovery and expansion - the greatest pleasures I now. I often feel like I’m on top of a mountain with someone locked into one view. I really really want to show them that there are also other beautiful views that all inter-connected. Yet in doing this, I often come across as devil’s advocate and taking the opposite view. Yet there are not two opposing views on the mountain top. And to me, it’s not fulfilling to show them a view they can already see. The desire is to show them a view they cannot see. Yet most of the time, this doesn’t go over very well. Several years ago, I watched a lot of those street epistemology videos. They are awesome at a certain stage of development. They were my first peeks at meta views and structure. Yet there is also a meta view to the meta view of the street epistemology guy. For example, he still sees beliefs as either true or false. He says he is only interested in why people believe what they do, yet it’s obvious he thinks certain.beliefs are irrational and he is curious why people believe in irrational beliefs. He also seems to want to help people transcend those irrational beliefs. His videos of several years ago seemed like a high orange level trying to help blue evolve. Yet I saw a video of him about a year ago and it looked like he was entering Yellow.

Haha. Thanks for quantifying that my efforts were highly inefficient. It’s a good reminder to me. I can get sucked into vortexes. Hopefully, someone else may have benefited. Just yesterday, I wondered if I could write a book. I have several ideas. Yet I though “How could I come up with enough material to write an entire book”. And here I am now - I just wrote 10% of a book without even trying. ? Part of it for me is passion. I often feel passion to express and articulate understanding. As well, I am a teacher by profession so I am used to talking on and on and on. . . . I’ve taught classes in which I lost track of time. Students are packing their bags and I say “Did two hours go by already?”. For me, it’s like a flow state of consciousness. For the students, they often struggle to maintain attention. As an aside, for those of you looking into life purpose. . . When you are doing something that you lose yourself into and lose track of time - that’s a really good sign. Ever since I was a teenager, I would get immersed into abstraction and learning/creating concepts and wanting to articulate understanding through analogies. It’s a core part of my creative mind.

This seems to be an important skill as the internet is flooded by materials ranging from low quality to high quality. Unfortunately, it is much easier to produce low quality material. High quality material is much rarer because it involves a lot of work to develop expertise. How I do online research depends on the topic. If it is an academically-related topic, I would likely use google scholar or pubmed. I would look for experts in the field. Right now, the question arises in my mind “what is the neuroscience of dreams? And how is dream-related brain activity related to psychedelics, creativity and schizophrenia?”. This is a relatively complex question that could take multiple steps of research. I would probably start off with a two keyword search and look for works from neuroscientists. I would keep an eye out for individuals or groups that are doing work in this area. Quite often, I’ll find an article from an amateur that cites a good expert. As I go along, I will cross-reference. If I read one article that discusses uncoupling the DMN and then another that mentions similar, that will get my attention. I may also look for YT videos, like TedTalks or academic-related videos. I know enough in this area to be able to sniff out higher quality stuff. As important is being able to sniff out BS. There is an intuition one can gain for BS. For example, if someone is over-emphasizing their credentials, that is a red flag. Or if someone is obviously trying to sell something or has a hidden agenda. Over time, I’ve become pretty good at sniffing out hidden agendas. Filtering out the low quality crap is easy. It gets harder as the quality gets higher. And there is less and less high quality sources. One can evolve so high in an area that there are very few high quality sources available. Within the middle range of quality, I notice two features. The information may be at a surface level, have lots of gaps or not be very integrated. As well the middle quality range can be a mixture of low, middle and high quality information. This is the hardest to sift through, especially if I am not knowledgeable in the area. For areas I’m not well-versed in, I would likely get feedback from someone I know with knowledge that I trust. For example, I have a friend who specializes in EMDR therapy and another that is a Reiki master. I don’t know much about these areas and may ask them for good sources. . . . As well, there is often a resonance I feel. For example, when I first researched Kriya Yoga, I bought the book off of Leo’s book list. I knew immediately that the author was a top level expert. This guy devoted most of his life to Kriya yoga and I could tell he knew his stuff. There was an immediate resonance and confidence. As well, I did a search for YT videos and found someone that cross-referenced the book well. The YT guy mentioned a lot of things in the book. I think you were referring to online research. Yet there is also the research of personal experimentation. Here, I use a process similar to the scientific method. Some question of curiosity and/or desire arises. One question arising lately for me is “How can I experience the experience of other people?”. I’m highly empathic and my hypothesis is that if the attachment/identification to a personal story can fully dissolve, then we should be able to access any personality”. I have verified this to some extent in direct experience, yet it gets tricky since the psychosis of being trapped halfway in a reality can arise. My research into this has involved experimentation and deep observation. For example, I’ve tried setting intentions, I’ve tried to enter state in a variety of different settings, I’ve used substances to get in state, I’ve watched videos about people deeply describing their experience. And I observe, observe, observe. For me, the most important skills of experimentation are openness, allowing space and observation. Then I tweak my experiments accordingly. For example, I’ve noticed I am much better at getting in state when watching someone describe an emotional experience of suffering - for example someone describing the insanity and struggles of solitary confinement. For some reason, I can do it much easier with painful experiences. I’ve had to work toward entering other’s experiences that are neutral or positive. Yet I’ve done it a few times with those as well.

@Derek White That thread seems to be about online research related to personal development. There is some overlap between the scientific method/research and this type of research, yet I don’t want to derail the thread with scientific structure. For example, if I was doing online research to learn about how the visual system processes facial recognition, I would probably go to pubmed or google search for neuroscience articles from reputable sources. As well, I may look for videos produced by experts in the field. After one days it for a while, you start to get a feel for high quality sources. Perhaps I’ll make a few general comments because we all do the research and the scientific method everyday without realizing it. Plus, I’m noticing more and more how difficult it is to discover quality sources.

Lol, the “research library” is for members only. I’m not going to become a member of an anti-Vaxxer organization. If there are so many links, just send me a couple. It only takes a second to cut and paste. You don’t seem to understand the structure of scientific research and the publication process in developed countries. Yes, many studies are conducted by pharmaceuticals and there are ethical concerns (I posted a link about bad science above). However, much of the research is conducted by non-profit universities. And publications are peer-reviewed by experts in the field that are independent of the pharmaceutical industry. Can pharmaceuticals do bad science and slip through some poor studies? Yes. Do pharmaceuticals have an unethical conflict of interest that can bias there results? Yes. Have pharmaceuticals been caught omitting data points to better portray a drug they want to go to market? Yes. I wrote about this ethical concern above. For example, with Tamiflu. However, what you are proposing is not limited to a pharmaceutical company or companies. What you are proposing would be a broad pro-vaccine conspiracy that involves the entire scientific community - including academic institutions and scientific journals. As well, vaccine development has a relatively low conflict of interest in pharmaceuticals because vaccines are not profitable. The profit margins are super low and there is little incentive for pharmaceuticals to invest in vaccine development. In particular, because it is “one and done”. Much more profitable are medications for recurring and chronic illness such as hypertension medication because the patients need the medication everyday. Here there is an enormous conflict of interest. Pharmaceuticals invest 100s of millions of dollars by the time they get to stage IV clinical trials. There is enormous financial pressure to generate research results to get the drug to market. Yet this conflict of interest is much much weaker for vaccines because they aren’t very profitable. Here is another meta analysis reviewing a wide-range of research. It addresses adverse effects of vaccines. In fact, the title is “Adverse Effects of Vaccines”. It also reviews both safety and potential dangers. https://www.nap.edu/resource/13164/Adverseeffectsofvaccinesreportbrief.pdf Again, I am not saying vaccines are 100% safe for 100% of people.

Lol. The “research library” is for members only. None of the articles on their main blog are actual research articles. They are all opinion pieces. Give me a direct link to your best peer-reviewed source. I’ve already given you a peer-reviewed meta analysis. Here is another from the highest medical journal in the world: The Journal of the American Medical Association showing direct links to their peer-reviewed articles on vaccines and autism. https://jamanetwork.com/searchresults?q=Vaccine autism&allSites=1&SearchSourceType=1&exPrm_qqq={!payloadDisMaxQParser pf=Tags qf=Tags^0.0000001 payloadFields=Tags bf=}"Vaccine autism"&exPrm_hl.q=Vaccine autism If you want to play the science game, you would be on the losing side. As I said, the scientific consensus based on the vast majority of scientific research disagrees with you.

This is an anti-vaxxer website that proudly claims they are anti-vaxxer. These are not publications in science journals that were peer-reviewed by experts in the field. Again, I’m not saying there are no concerns about vaccines. Yet, if you want to make scientific claims, then use the highest scientific sources (primary articles in peer-reviewed journals). For example, this is a peer-reviewed scientific article of a meta-analysis of studies conducted with over 1.2 million children. There was no significant correlation with vaccines and autism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

You are interpreting what I am saying in a particular way that is contracted. The main point is that I am not saying you are completely wrong and that everything you have posted is completely wrong. My impression is that your mind has created two opposing, and mutually exclusive, theories - theory A or theory B. Whenever I write something, you seem to be categorizing that into either theory A (which you agree with) or theory B (which you disagree with). Such a binary construct makes it very difficult to discuss and communicate pros and cons of multiple theories, nuances and inter-relationships. For example, if I point out a deficiency in theory A, you seem to assume that I disagree with theory A and that I therefor agree with the opposing theory B. I agree with you that alternative medicine has great potential. I’ve engaged in alternative medicine. I agree with you that various alternative diets and detoxes can have health benefits., This is the frustrating part for me. The misinformation I’m pointing out does not reduce or dismiss the value of alternative medicine, detoxes etc. The misinformation is totally unneeded. In fact, removing the misinformation, or clarifying it and integrating it, would greatly increase the understanding and value. You would not need to reject the core component of your beliefs. It’s not a competition. I would actually like to see much more scientific research invested in alternative medicine. To create the accurate holistic models it’s best to integrate accurate information. If we were to create a fusion band of jazz and classical music - we would bring together the best musicians that have expertise in jazz and classical music. We wouldn’t deny the best classical musicians because we are afraid that means we need to reject jazz. And we wouldn’t have all jazz musicians that spout off nonsense about classical music like “Mozart never existed. We cannot have anything related to Mozart in our jazz-classical fusion band”. What I am saying is that your links bring up some nice “jazz music” of value to the band, yet it is sprinkled with some nonsense about classical music, because the musicians are not classical musicians and don’t understand it. And then you keep saying that I’m a closed-minded classical music lover that is anti-jazz. It’s not a competitive conflict between jazz and classical. I think you would be much better off just going with the jazz or integrating jazz and classical together. But what you’ve got now is some nice jazz music mixed with some really bad classical music.

Please don’t conflate what I say. There are two issue you brought up. One was regarding the strength of evidence regarding germ theory. I said that germ theory is fundamentally states the existence of pathogenic microbes and that no medical expert would argue against this essentially irrefutable evidence. If you are speaking to people that argue against this fundamental tenant of the theory, then they would not be considered medical experts. I’ve spent 30 years of my life within the scientific community, it’s my career. And I can tell you that anyone who argues against the fundamental tenants of germ theory would not be considered a medical expert within the scientific community. That’s not to say that medical experts can add in nuances. I’m talking about what makes germ theory germ theory: the existence of pathogenic microbes. And scientists don’t argues that a theory has not been “proven”. That term is rarely used by scientists. We use terminology like “support” or “demonstrates” or “statistically significant”. For example, I could say that there is immense empirical data supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution. I could also say that the theory has been expanded and we now know greater details of the mechanisms of evolution, such as underlying genetics. Yet a scientist wouldn’t really say that the theory has not been “proven”. It would be like a physicist saying the Law of Gravity hasn’t been “proven”. The fundamental framework is sound and we build upon it. The second issue had to do with vaccines. In terms of science - an immense number of studies have been conducted and reviewed by experts in the field. There is now a consensus within the scientific community. In scientific terms, by saying you have a problem with those studies, would place yourself on the same level as experts that have reviewed the studies and countless scientific experts that have read the studies. For example, you may criticize studies due to small sample sizes, insufficient controls, lack of blind studies, usage of T-tests rather than Anova etc. That is certainly possible, yet these factors have been rigorously examined by many experts in the field. I would be cautious of what you are claiming here as you may be entering Dunning-Kruger territory. Alternatively, you may be claiming you have problems with the scientific consensus for non-scientific reasons. I would also be cautious here as you may be entering conspiracy theories. For example, one may say the studies were biased due to a conspiracy to pressure researchers to publish certain results to continue the vaccine system. Or, I suppose we could take a transcendent view and question the efficacy of studies contracted within a materialist paradigm - yet that doesn’t seem to be the level of conversation in this thread.

That is a different context than what I’m pointing to. That involves relativity, which is a great area to explore, just a different area. Absolutely. I often talk about the limitations of science. I was locked within the scientific paradigm for about 25 years. A transcendent view reveals that science is within larger expansiveness. I would now consider myself more of a mystic than a scientist. I think someone like Deepak Chopra is a great example of a someone that understands science, yet has transcended the scientific paradigm. However, there are different levels of discussion. If this was a transcendent discussion about the metaphysics of viral imaginations, that is a very different context. The context in this thread is not a post-rational transcendent context. Rather, it is at the level of reason, logic, material and science. That is why I am communicating in these terms. If someone is making claims within the realm of reason, material and science - then use those tools accurately. If someone starts a thread on the post-rational nature of hallucinating a physical reality - then I would be communicating very differently. This is true and a very good point, with caveats. There are many paths to becoming an expert in an area. This generally involves tens of thousands of hours of practice, study, experimentation, direct experience and contemplation. I’m not an expert because of an institution or letters after my name. I am fluent because I spent tens of thousand of hours training. Anyone who spent as much time as me doing this better be an expert. One would need to be a total idiot not to be. The environment one attains expertise depends on the area. Attaining expertise in tennis, meditation, Chinese, and molecular Biology all involve different environments. Can someone gain expertise in molecular Biology outside of an institution? I would say to an extent. After thousands of study hours, one could gain a fairly deep understanding of theory. Yet science goes way beyond this. For example, I spent 20 years of my life conducting research with multi-million dollar equipment. I worked in a lab, published peer-reviewed papers and have spoken at dozens of national and international conferences. I’m not saying this to brag. I’m highlighting that one needs to within a research group with resources and equipment to get this direct experience. Without this experience, their understanding would be limited. . . Yet that’s not to say this is the “best” experience. One could go very deep into theory independently. For example, I would put much of Leo’s theoretical understanding of metaphysics, social dynamics and philosophy on the level of a University professor.

If someone told you that the word “reinforcing” actually means a “chicken”, would you believe them? And they tell you that biology is a building in English. Would you believe them? Of course not, because you are fluent in English. However, for someone who didn’t speak English, they would be vulnerable to believing this nonsense. There is a difference between being ignorant and gullible vs. being knowledgeable and closed-minded. Again, I am not saying everything you are posting is BS. I’m fluent in Biology and consider myself open-minded. Yet because I’m fluent in Biology, it’s very easy for me to spot nonsense - even when it’s mixed with value. For example, can you spot the nonsense in the below statement? I am going to sfsveh jsjwba about the last dndnezk I traveled shegzz. The reason is dhexidme which caused due xc kens. Of course you can spot the nonsense. You are not “anti-English” or “closed-minded” because you can spot the nonsense. You can do so because you are fluent in English. Yet if I did a similar exercise in Russian, it would be much harder for you to spot the nonsense. .. . Now imagine someone fluent in molecular and cellular Biology. It would be very easy for them to spot nonsense within biological claims. Yet for someone no fluent, it would be much harder. Being unaware of this can cause all sorts of problems. For example, I am aware that I am not fluent in car mechanics or physics. If I was under the delusion that I was fluent in car mechanics or physics, it could cause confusion and misunderstanding. I would be vulnerable to accepting all sorts of claims since I’m not aware of my gaps. When I go to see a car mechanic and he tells me that my mom was wrong and that the carburetor is not the gas tank, I don’t dismiss him and tell him that he is closed-minded and that my mom knows a lot of things of value.

You didn’t use “theory” in the correct scientific context. A theory essentially has irrefutable scientific evidence. In this case, for the existence of pathogenic microbes. There is zero debate in the scientific community. The term “proven” is rarely used by scientists, because it is an absolute term. Those are not medical experts you are listening to. No medical expert would deny the existence of pathogenic microbes. Yet, that does not mean that we are continually updating theories as we learn more. For example, we have learned there are both beneficial and pathogenic microbes. However, this does not overturn the fundamental basis of the theory. No there isn’t. Go read some actual peer-reviewed scientific research regarding vaccines and autism. Look and evaluate the actual evidence yourself. There have been many reputable peer-reviewed studies from independent labs around the world and the results are consistent enough to lead to a scientific consensus. (And no, these various studies and scientists were not part of a pro-vaccine conspiracy theory). However, this doesn’t mean that vaccines have no negative impact or that some people are vulnerable to be negatively affected by vaccines. It simply means there is no statistically significant consensus that vaccines are a causative agent of autism. As well, keep in mind that there can be a synergy of multiple variables leading to a condition. It is possible that vaccines are one of many contributing factors, such that they are essentially harmless to most people, because the other contributing factors are not present. I just don’t have the time and patience to correct all the misinformation and misunderstanding. There is a reason some vaccines have a intravenous ROA (and it’s not a conspiracy reason). Hint: what happens at a ph of 2 in the stomach? What would molecules need to be able to do to survive the stomach and enter the bloodstream?

In the biological sciences, a “theory” is at the highest level. A theory is on the same level as a “Law” in physics. Germ Theory is on the same level as The Law of Gravity. Biology uses the term “theory” instead of “law”. It is the highest standard of irrefutable scientific evidence. Don’t confuse “hypothesis” with “theory”. Saying “it’s just a theory” is a misunderstanding and very misleading.

You are missing what I’m trying to convey. I am not saying there is no value in these ideas. There is some value. To me, you are not able to distinguish between the value and the bullshit. Imo, part of the reason is that you are trusting what others say about science. You may be resonating with the value aspects and accept all of what they say - grouping together value and bullshit. Yet without an understanding of the biology, I can see how it would be difficult to discern between value and BS. Allopathic medicine has its limitations. Are there some closed minded allopathic doctors? Do course. Are there benefits of alternative medicine? Of course. Do some scientists over exaggerate the pathogenic nature of microbes? Of course. Yet to then extrapolate this to say microbes don’t exist or don’t contribute to illness is absolutely absurd. And the baffling thing to me is that you don’t need to do this. I have no idea why you are so attached to this view. It’s like saying getting oil changes for a car is important for proper function, so that means rust can damage a car. . . . I don’t understand why you think they are mutually exclusive.

Scientific inquiries begin with a hypothesis, followed by experiments to test that hypothesis, followed by observation and data gathering, followed by data interpretation, followed by updating the original hypothesis, followed by more testing of the new updated hypothesis - and the cycle continues. The article you linked is using sciencey-sounding lingo in a very misleading way. It is asking the reader to discard hundreds of thousands of actual scientific experiments conducted by thousands of scientists over a hundred years. It is asking to dismiss thousands of peer-reviewed articles based on millions of empirical data points. The author then offers a pseudo-sciencey explanation that may be perceived as having a scientific basis for those that don’t understand science., In the above flow chart, the author gives a hypothesis and that’s it! That’s literally it. Anyone can create a hypothesis. My 9 year old niece can create a hypothesis. We can pull shit out of our ass and call it a hypothesis. Calling it a “theory” is an effort to elevate a hypothesis to increase it’s credibility when it lacks underlying support. In biological science, “theory” is not a hypothesis. A theory is at a much much higher level. In real science, to reach theory status, an immense amount of research must be conducted from multiple directions and results must be consistent, predictive and reproducible by any scientist. In biology “theory” is on the same level as “law” in physics. Thus, Germ Theory is on the same level as the the Law of Gravity. The article you linked is speculative hypothesis. It is philosophical. It is not a scientific theory. There is nothing wrong with speculation and philosophizing, yet call it what it is. To call it a scientific theory on par with Germ Theory is highly inaccurate and misleading. There are some nuggets of truth in there, yet it is also filled with misinformation. The author himself says that he has no biological understanding and that is very obvious to someone who has biological understanding. But it’s the truth. Do you value truth or not? I don’t like it when someone lies to get their point across. And the author doesn’t even need to lie with misinformation. He could easily discuss how to create a healthy internal system without going off the rails into anti-germ theory. It’s totally unnecessary. Because it’s inaccurate and misleading. This boils down to whether you want to learn about whats true or not. Staying locked in a paradigm is very limited, especially this one - in part because it’s totally outdated. The idea that all microbes are potential threats is so 1970s. C’mon. We’ve known for decades there are both beneficial microbes and pathogenic microbes. The microbiome in the gut contains millions of beneficial microbes necessary for healthy metabolism, immune system, brain function and emotional wellbeing. I agree that detox can be a natural and effective way to cleanse the body. Yet there is no need to add in whacky ideas about anti-germ theory. . . Yoga is a great way to cleanse the body, yet that doesn’t mean that drinking mercury won’t harm the body.

I would be mindful of the mind’s tendency to create concrete, stable grounding. This can have practical value, yet it is also at a surface level. We could create countless constructs of enlightenment. That wouldn’t give much practical grounding tho. Yet the flip side is that grounding creates assumptions and is very limiting. I see many seekers create a “thing” called “enlightenment” that they pursue. . . A deeper understanding is aware of context and relativity. It depends on your definition of enlightenment. This is the circular nature of all thought constructs. Ime, 5-Meo gives the best direct experience of “*”. However, the trick is that the mind will later want to contextualize “*” as an “experience” or a “thing” called stuff like “enlightenment”. This has practical value as we communicate and relate to each other. Yet no contextualization can capture the totality of “*”.

I too would love to see an environment in which new questions are explored for the sake of curiosity, truth and progress. As you say, influences such as funding and agenda can corrupt. I see this a lot in scientific research and it’s getting worse as capitalism engulfs scientific research. Imo, questioning mainstream views for the sake of being anti-mainstream will create a dilemma. Mainstream views include that which is true, partially true and untrue. If a mind decides to reject all mainstream views, it will successfully filter out all the untrue views. Yet this comes at a cost - the mind will also filter out true mainstream views and partially true mainstream views. As well, the mind will be attracted to all anti-mainstream views, many of which are false or partially false. Such a mind will be gullible and vulnerable to any anti-mainstream outlet - includes nefarious outlets. I think this is one of the major issues for younger generations. There is an enormous amount of conflicting information online and not just news outlets - also social media. And people + algorithms are getting very good at disseminating misinformation - often in the name of “anti-mainstream”. I see many people believing whacky ideas because they are anti-mainstream.

I’m not referring to the “upfrontness”, I am referring to the frame. I’m happy to say it is an upfront, bad frame. It’s not just a new idea to be open to, it is the framing. We could easily be upfront with a more accurate frame. For example we could ask “Are you aware bacteria and viruses are only one variable of many that contribute to diseases?”. This is an upfront, accurate frame, however the publisher wouldn’t use it because it is not aligned with it’s intention to convince the readers that bacteria and viruses don’t contribute to disease. It would be like someone saying “Genetics doesn’t cause Schizophrenia”. This is partially true, yet highly misleading. Certain genes forms can contribute to Schizophrenia, yet are insufficient by themselves to cause Schizophrenia. There are many variables, including environmental variables. It’s thought that dozens of genes each contribute to Schizophrenia, yet collectively genetics only contributes about 65% and environmental 35%. . . Similarly, we could hypothesize that microbes are only one variable of many that contribute to a illness/disease, yet on their own are insufficient to cause a illness/disease. . . . In contrast, the claim that microbes in no way contribute to any illness/disease would be inaccurate. As well, the claim that microbes are the only causative agent of every illness/disease is also inaccurate. Both extremes are inaccurate, because it’s not an either / or binary situation. There is an inter-relationship of many factors - including (yet not limited to) microbes. I criticized them for their framing right out of the gate, not an agenda. These are two separate things. For example, if I asked you “When did you stop beating your child?”. The framing is bad, regardless of agenda. The framing assumes that you have a child and that you beat your child. As well, over simplification is a red flag for someone understands underlying complexity. Sometimes there is a balance between oversimplification and accuracy when trying to articulate understanding. For example, I was helping my niece with her biology homework and explained how genes have either a dominant or recessive allele. Technically, this statement isn’t 100% accurate. Yet in this situation, sacrificing some accuracy is worth it to be able to articulate a fundamental point. As she continues her education, we can add in complexities and nuances. In a few years she will fully understand the dominant vs recessive nature of genes and I will tell her “Remember how I told you there was only dominant and recessive alleles? Well, that ins’t totally accurate. . . check this out, there are also other forms”. In this context, removing complexity and accuracy for the sake of simplicity and fundamentals is not misleading. Yet in other contexts, oversimplification is misleading and hinders articulating understanding. The statement “microbes don’t cause disease” is so oversimplified that it is misleading. And the article double-downed on this misleading frame by repetitively trying to dismiss how microbes can be a contributing factor to disease.

When vaccines are prepared well for serious diseases, vaccines have strong benefits for society that outweigh the negatives. Most vaccines have trace heavy metals which are not good for the body to accumulate over time. For most people, such trace heavy metals will not show obvious negative consequences (although they could be one of many variables that contributes to an illness). As well, a portion of the population may have genetic or nutritional deficiencies that make them more vulnerable to vaccines. However on balance, I would say that, for serious diseases, the benefits of vaccines outweighs the negatives. Ideally, vaccine design would prioritize the wellbeing of individuals and society. Yet when we mix in toxic capitalism, politics, greed, power dynamics, misinformation etc. an altruistic intention can get corrupted. The question you raise about transparency is a core ethical concern of informed consent. Without transparency and accurate information, how can someone give informed consent? This is one of my main ethical issues in pharmaceutical research. For example, pharmaceutical-based research of Tamiflu removed data and misrepresented data. Their Tamiflu product was then marketed worldwide, which was later found to be mostly ineffective with lots of side effects. The pharmaceutical manufacturer was later found to have intentionally conducted bad science. This can be remedied somewhat by peer-reviewed publications, yet that can get corrupted too. As well, the structure of drug design sets up an inherent conflict of interest. By the time a drug reaches stage 4 clinical trials, 100s of millions of dollars are invested as well as the careers of researchers. It’s high stakes for the researchers, their funding and shareholders. This is a huge conflict of interest which leads to biased science (either intentionally or unintentionally). A country lacking altruistic intentions, integrity and transparency will also lack trust within the populace. In such an environment, I would not be comfortable. Yet keep in mind, it’s not black and white. For example, in the US there are both ethical and unethical practices of pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, the unethical aspects can get exaggerated and amplified in media through partially correct and partial misinformation. Below is a good video looking at “bad science”. It includes the mechanisms of generic bogus claims (like eating grapes prevents breast cancer). Yet also looks under the hood at how pharmaceutical companies can conduct biased, bad research and even publish it. However, this not to say all pharmaceutical research is biased/bad. Imo, the presenter is legit and see different perspectives clearly. Ben Godacre is a *real* physician that understands science and how people manipulate science to their own advantage.

Right off the bat, there is poor framing. The first sentence is “Do bacteria cause disease? Do viruses?”. . . That is horrible framing. It sets up a binary decision of whether or not bacteria and viruses cause disease. That is the foundation of the entire article. Such a binary construct will miss intricacies and nuances. Do bacteria and viruses cause disease? If we say ‘no’, we limit ourselves to diseases independent of disease. We exclude ourselves from learning and understanding microbial-based diseases. As well, the mind will not be open to see the interactions between microbial and non-microbial aspects of disease. For example, how the microbiome in the gut interacts with the genetic background in the grain. Do bacteria and viruses cause disease? If we say ‘yes’, it allows more space - yet it too can be limiting. For example, if we believe that only microbes cause disease, we will not be open to learning about non-microbial diseases. As well, we would not be open to viewing interactions between microbial and non-microbial within a disease. For example, someone may have a poor diet that leads to inefficient cellular respiration and a compromised immune system. Opportunistic bacteria may be able to gain traction in this body that was already compromised. So is the disease caused by the poor diet or by the bacteria? Both. Do bacteria and viruses cause disease? The best answer would be “yes and no” and then an open exploration. Since the article is grounded in “no”, it will be inherently misleading. It had some truths, yet it is also has misleading statements contextualized to support the underlying agenda of the article.