The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Qualifying Theory and Pseudo-Theory

The scientific method is a discipline of solving a perplexing mystery when stakeholders are in a state of confusion or even desirous of exploiting the uncertainty it brings. In order to move beyond a good wallow in the mystery however, one must craft more art than simply a casual construct: rather, a set of disciplined and risk incremental conjecture.
There exists a stark set of criteria which distinguish the construct from its more mature conjecture cousin, theory. Even more distinguished, is the social pseudoscience phenomena known as pseudo-theory. It behooves the ethical skeptic to understand what makes up each of these three conjecture domains: construct, theory and pseudo-theory and how they relate to the scientific method.

As a young principal in a strategic advisory firm, I once supported a very familiar corporation who had an inventory problem. They asked me to initiate a project to investigate the cause of the recurring mismatch between their systems inventory and the actual physical inventories held in stock. I was already well recognized as an expert in this type of business mystery at a fairly young age. This company’s accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, had mandated that the company conduct quarterly inventories because this problem had become enormously impactful to accounting integrity and overall business performance. So pronounced in fact, that their quarterly inventory would again be off by 15 percentage points a mere three months after having ‘corrected’ it afresh each beginning of a new quarter. This mismatch between stock and what their information systems said was in their stock, was bringing the company to its knees. So they called my company. We were one of the best firms at analyzing signal theory and searching out the systemic causes of various industry operational or trade challenges. Our principals had seen it all, over the years. I set my talented team in place and we went to work on what is known as, yes, the scientific method – that is, a discipline of solving a perplexing mystery when stakeholders around you seem to be confused or even enjoying or exploiting a good wallow in the uncertainty it bears.

The executive team of the client possessed three primary ideas as to what might be causing the inventory drift. None of these were proven out however, each constituting only educated thoughts which the executive team had generated. Certainly valuable, these sets of preliminary conjecture were not theories per se; rather a less mature form of theory, what I call a construct. In order to solve a problem however and disabuse one’s self of enjoying a good wallow in the incumbent mystery, one must move beyond construct, and onto a set of incremental risk conjecture called theory. My team and I set about the process of establishing the necessity of theory. We were searching for those conjectures which bore both explanatory and quantifiable mettle, to sponsor into fully plausible explanations for the inventory drift. Hypotheses.

As sponsors, yet without a true hypothesis, we set about the beginning of solving a mystery: Observation, Intelligence and establishing Necessity. Every problem is solved in this fashion. We gathered data, tabled the premature ideas for a while, and began to assimilate intelligence – different ways of looking at the data we collected. We were looking for a thing called Necessity. What did the executive team know, know that they did not know, and did not know that they did not know? It is always this last category of not knowing, which I focus most upon. This is where a savvy investigator seeks to establish necessity. Indeed we found the problem by developing and falsification testing a theory inside a facet of their business which they least suspected to be an origination of the problem. However those executives who were exploiting the ‘wallow in uncertainty’ in an effort to get the VPIS fired, were not happy at all. They were the ‘social skeptics’ if you will. They were operating on pseudo-theory. Big on appearances, big on agenda. Easy to utter, no one can prove you wrong. They constituted a bigger problem than the inventory errancy ever pretended to be. This is essentially what I hinted to the CEO as we completed and presented our final report. Sure the VPIS made his share of executive miscalls. But the lack of team, and the disingenuous motives of these agenda-serving executives were significant problems for the company; ones which would continue long after tactical and technical issues were solved.

On Philosophy, expounds about bad theory and how it can be exploited for gain, under its Metaphilosophy thread:

A good example of a theory that isn’t able to be falsified, even in principle, is Freudian psychology. Freudian psychology fails to be falsifiable not because the theory is unclear but because the objects of the theory don’t seem to correspond to anything real. Freudian psychology posits an ego-superego-id structure to explain human behavior. How the ego superego and id interact is pretty clearly spelled out in the theory, so the problem is not that the theory doesn’t say anything definite about the theoretical objects it posits to explain phenomena. The problem lies in the way judgments about the ego superego and id are made. The psychologist observes the patient and then, on the basis of the patient’s behavior, creates a story about the interaction of their ego superego and id that seems to explain those observations. It would seem then that once the doctor has arrived at a hypothesis about the patient’s ego superego and id that Freudian psychology would then be testable, by comparing future behavior to the kind of behavior the theory says should be displayed by someone with that combination of ego superego and id. And this is where problems arise, because if the patient does act in unexpected ways it does not prompt the psychologist to question Freudian psychology. Instead they simply alter their story about the patient’s ego superego and id to fit this new behavior, and Freudian psychology can provide a story for any combination of behavior.1

A good professional instinct recognizes necessity, construct, theory and pseudo-theory when he or she sees it. In the end, the problem was found to reside in an area which the executives of the company had not considered before. Of course we conducted deductive system audit work – but a discrete beginning of the inventory errancy occurred after a process which had theretofore been considered beyond question. This is called a signal. it is part of the Intelligence and Necessity steps of the process outlined below. They did not know, what they did not know. This is how an astute researcher develops theory, true scientific theory. The ‘systems transaction’ approach they foisted on us, bore explanitude and even some consilience (see elements of Pseudo-Theory below). To blame the systems and VPIS, was an approach which could explain everything we saw, and was very hard to falsify. And was politically expedient.

Beware of fake skeptics who push explanitude (as in the case of Freudian Psychology above) and do not appear to understand how the scientific method really works – but speak lots and lots about it. They may be enjoying a good wallow in the sustained mystery and the celebrated power it affords their Cabal. They may be celebrating and exploiting pseudo-theory.

The Scientific Method

 Construct, Theory (Hypothesis) and Pseudo-Theory

A theory (hypothesis) is a construct with certain features added into the mix which make it a tool of plenary science. A construct, as incomplete as it is however, is a vital and useful tool at the sponsorship phase of the scientific method. In our project I just outlined above, one of the executives, who had no love lost for the Vice President of Information Systems, made it clear to me that “his intransigence on allowing input into the stock ledger management process, was the cause of the errant inventory.” The executive wanted the VP of Information Systems fired; and he wanted me to provide the evidence which would make his case. This construct was handed to my team and we were instructed to diligently pursue it. Everyone knew that it was the VP of Information Systems’ fault anyway. Argumentum ad populum, a key warning sign that maybe some stakeholders are enjoying or exploiting the mystery to increase their personal power base.

Wallowing in the mystery, this a habit which religious peddlers and social skeptics share in common. This is why many of our greatest social conundrums persist long after their shelf life has expired. The mystery can be exploited for club advantage.

Some of the cursory investigation their staff had conducted even clearly suggested his culpability in the matter. So I nodded and set off with my team to solve the issue using our best methods and knowledge.


/philosophy : science : knowledge development/ : an original explanatory framework or explanation for a phenomenon, which has not risen to the level of hypothesis or theory. A construct is contending for plurality screening under Ockham’s Razor, seeks to explain a context set of repeatable data, and is distinguishable from other hypotheses, theories or constructs attempting to cohesively explain the same or related data.

The Nature of Theory

A theory on the other hand, the real implement which is exercise-able under the scientific method and plenary science, bears features which the construct does not. More specifically the following list of items characterize those ideas whose sets of conjecture can be disciplined into what is in truth and method, a hypothesis.2

Theory (Hypothesis)

/philosophy : science : knowledge development : scientific method/ : is not merely a proposed explanation for a set of observations or phenomenon. Rather, true scientific theory (hypothesis) is an elegant mechanism of incremental and parsimonious conjecture, which explains consistently observed phenomena completely, without bearing the capability to explain everything, and which can be tested in objective fashion and repeated, and may or may not yet feature an underlying causal understanding or mechanism.

More specifically, a theory (hypothesis) bears the following critical traits or essences:

1.  Bears Wittgenstein definition,

2.  Is based upon necessity from developed intelligence, not simply bias or desire based upon data, anecdote or premature question.

3.  Possesses critical historical explanatory strength – things explained must bear a chain of empirical veracity themselves and not be anecdote (unless falsifying) – as a theory which explains everything likely explains nothing.

4.  Bears a critical element of measurability, under a context of incremental risk.

5.  Undertakes risk in incremental conjecture (but not outlandish sets of risk)

6.  Features a testable (or vulnerable to falsification) mechanism,

7.  Bears predictive power and

8.  Offers an advisory protocol for replication.

The Nature of Pseudo-Theory

Pseudo-Theory in contrast – is a construct which derives its viability through artificial or socially constructed mechanisms. The principle traits of pseudo-theory involve the following:

Pseudo-Theory (Mock Hypothesis)

/philosophy : argument : theory : pseudo-theory/ : is a premature and imperious proposed explanation for a set of post facto observations or phenomenon. Instead of bearing the traits of true scientific theory (hypothesis) – a pseudo-theory is quickly crafted and installed so as to exploit the advantages of pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. It explains everything without having to be approached by falsification, nor having to successfully predict anything. Usually installed as the null hypothesis before an argument is even framed around an issue, pseudo-theory is used primarily as a football enabling dismissal of competing alternatives from the point of its installation as the null hypothesis, onward.

More specifically, pseudo-theory (mock hypothesis) bears the following profiling traits or essences:

1.  Can be developed in full essence before any investigation even begins

2.  Never improves in its depth, description nor falsifiable or inductive strength despite ongoing research and increases in observational data

3.  Possesses no real method of falsification or distinguishing predictive measure which is placed at risk

4.  Employs non-Wittgenstein equivocal/colloquial terminology or underlying premises (possibly pseudo-theory itself) where the risk of conjecture is not acknowledged

5.  Is employed primarily as a symbolic or fiat excuse to dismiss disliked or competing explanations

6.  Can explain a multiplicity of observations or even every non-resolved question (Explanitude)

7.  Is artificially installed as the null hypothesis from the very start

8.  Attains its strength through becoming a Verdrängung Mechanism

Verdrängung Mechanism

/philosophy : argument : theory : pseudo-theory/ : the level of control and idea displacement achieved through skillful employment of the duality between pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. The longer a control-minded group can sustain a favored hypothesis (Omega Hypothesis) perception by means of the tactics and power protocols of proactive pluralistic ignorance, the greater future acceptability and lifespan that idea will possess. As well, the harder it will to be dethrone as an accepted norm or perception as a ‘proved’ null hypothesis.

In developing my thoughts around pseudo-theory I struggled for a better portion of a year, hashing over old idea failures, and socially influenced business and science communication cases before penning it. The struggle was over essentially three questions:

1.  How does the soundness (validity of its premises) of the theory play into its role as pseudo-theory, and
2.  How does the ultimate verity (success) of the theory itself relate to its status as pseudo-theory?

and finally,

3.  What if a construct is promoted into status as an accepted pseudo-theory, and then begins to show predictive consilience at a later time?

Regarding the first two questions, my conclusion was that neither factor plays into the delineation of whether or not a construct is being promoted into status as pseudo-theory. The theory’s (hypothesis’) formality, soundness, logical calculus, etc. are well known facets of argument discourse. The irony which elicits this is the fact that a pseudo-theory can also mature into one day being a real theory and further then a valid one – whereas a wrong answer can never mature into being a right answer. Thus, verity and pseudo-theory status, are two differing issues. The status of pseudo-theory pertains more to the idea – is this a real hypothesis, and is it ready for exercise under the scientific method? – or is it merely a construct, which has been promoted to the status of a theory, or even truth – without due process? It is not a judgement as to its construct being right or wrong, successful or failing; rather simply, premature.

So, pseudo-theory pertains more to the state of maturity of the idea (construct) in terms of its ability to be addressed by science, and NOT to its soundness, formality and logical calculus or truth. That comes later IF we have not promoted it to truth and into a state of exemption from being vetted by science in the first place.

The key for the ethical skeptic is this:  one distinguishes themselves from their skeptical colleagues in recognizing when pseudo-theory sits in the seat as the null hypothesis (Imposterlösung Mechanism). There are many ideas which have been selected solely under the protocols of logical reduction, to reside as the null hypothesis – but bear no real definition, nor supporting evidence. Constructs of absence and negation for instance: this does not exist or that is not valid or those people are deluded for a variety of reasons. The ethical skeptic must discern the conditions between when a mere construct (pseudo-theory) resides as the null, simply from the standpoint of procedure, and when a real theory (hypothesis) – fully vettable by science, measurement and competing alternatives – has assumed the null hypothesis role.

This is the origin of the contention that an ethical skeptic recognizes and works with the null hypothesis, but that does not mean that he necessarily believes it.

Question 3 therefore, pertains to a more serious and challenging aspect of the delineation between skepticism and social skepticism. This is a very common play inside of socially promoted science – We come up with an idea, we promote that idea as truth, then we go out and look for science to back it up.  To me, this is still a process of pseudo-science.  Hence, a pseudo-theory, even backed by some post-installment inductive support, is still a pseudo-theory.

Example Pseudo-Theory: The Blank Slate Theory (excerpt from, except for list items 1 – 8 below)3

One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Proponents of the theory, which began with the work of Aristotle and was expressed by everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the empiricist philosopher John Locke, insisted that all mental content was the result of experience and education. For these thinkers, nothing was instinct or the result of nature. The idea found its most famous expression in psychology in the ideas of Sigmund Freud, whose theories of the unconscious stressed that the elemental aspects of an individual’s personality were constructed by their earliest childhood experiences.

1.  Was developed in antiquity before any in-depth knowledge of DNA, the brain or human developmental psychology and twin studies

2.  Never improved in its depth, description nor falsifiable or inductive strength (only became a Freudian appeal to authority)

3.  Never really attempted to be falsified until twins studies, DNA and modern psychology challenged the notion

4.  Based upon the notion that man is a spirit primarily & wholly accountable to god for every thought and action (also a pseudo-theory itself)

5.  Is employed primarily as a symbolic or fiat excuse to dismiss body-machine ideas

6.  Was able to explain every motivation of mankind and men

7.  Was artificially installed, and ruled as, the null hypothesis from antiquity

8.  Attains its strength through becoming a Verdrängung Mechanism and appeal to authority for over 2500 years

How it was Proven Wrong

While there’s little doubt that a person’s experiences and learned behaviors have a huge impact on their disposition, it is also now widely accepted that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with certain innate instincts, also play a crucial role. This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which similar gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures. Meanwhile, studies of adopted children and twins raised in separate families have come to similar conclusions about the ways certain traits can exist from birth.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post => 4

November 27, 2017 Posted by | Argument Fallacies, Ethical Skepticism | , , , | 2 Comments

Key Warning Signs You are Dealing with a Flim-Flam Artist

Twenty five indicators that you are dealing with that base level of sociopath con man who frequents the periphery of legitimate international business. More obvious? Yes. Common traits with social skeptics? Absolutely.

For now, let’s take a break from my usual commentary regarding fake skeptics. Or perhaps not so much as a break in actuality, as fake skeptics notably constitute a very specialized form of sophisticated con – one perhaps not picked up upon by the general population as easily. So let me reword my introduction here. Why don’t we notch down our target of focus here to a less sophisticated, more readily obvious form of flim-flam artist, one known as the sales job con man. The con man does not bill himself as representing science. Heck he doesn’t even understand science – yet he is every bit the faker which is the social skeptic.

As a businessman, I have run into my share of con men. When I closed out my father’s estate after his passing, bless his heart, it turns out that he was a sucker for a con man with a half baked story. I spent years extracting his estate from the clutches of several greedy and dishonest players who stole from him or tried to swindle his estate out of money/property – one was even his trusted bank. The crooks at his major bank stole on the order of $2 million from him themselves – through an irrevocable trust scam that they ran on elderly clients in the 1980’s. Such cases are in the public domain, so go look them up, along with the banks which ran them. I was able to rescue my mother from destitution as a widow, through perseverance and aggressive prosecution of these fakers. Even at that young age, I learned the nature of, and how to spot the cheat, the swindle and the crooked sell. It played well into my ability to spot even more sophisticated fakers and cheats later on.

As a person who has executed budgets for nations, programs and clients, letting literally thousands of contracts – both which I have bid and awarded, I have run into my share of swindlers, cheats, boasters, con-men, rip-off artists – and those who delude themselves along the pathway of attempting to delude others. Just as in the case of the social skeptic, the con artist must first convince himself of the superior nature of his motives, abilities, wares and goals – before he can effectively swindle his prey. In one of my businesses I owned, I have been hired internationally for decades – precisely because of my ability to spot a con, and protect a client. I eventually sold that business after decades of global, industry leading work.

So without further ado, let’s take a quick look at that base level of sociopath con man who frequents the periphery of legitimate international business. More obvious, yes. Common traits with social skeptics? Absolutely.

Twenty five signs that the person you are dealing with is a con man

1.  Is always a billionaire or just about to be one, yet can never seem to pay for lunch.

2.  Habitually values newer opportunities/contacts over older ones – the most recent deal coming in the door is always the most lucrative one on the docket.

3.  Seems to be a dunce/incapable on every subject with single exception of how the money flows and works.

4.  Money is always imminent from some black-box mechanism (privy to trade access, Euro bonds, insurance scam, African diamonds, etc.) which is hidden from you or implied as above your understanding.

5.  Rides the roller coaster of bi-polar behavior – uses it as a passive-aggressive method of manipulation.

6.  Abuses substances, especially bipolar-enhancing-yet-sustainable ones like alcohol, and is easily addicted/chain smokes. Only ‘friends’ are drunks.

7.  Meticulously avoids providing any employable work or value other than his ‘Network’.

8.  Network of contacts never seems to include any acquaintances of duration longer than one or two years.

9.  Holds no references/friends/contacts from any of the businesses he mentions working with/for in the past.

10.  Shows sudden indignant flashes of anger when uncertainty arises concerning money.

11.  Makes flamboyant display or often mention of her generosity or team-player nature.

12.  Exaggerates his contribution or investment into a project or effort.

13.  Cannot seem to keep a spouse.

14.  Is generous with money when it is in theory – then suddenly greedy when it is on the table.

15.  Seems to constantly roll from one injury to the next – lots of down time from injury and illness.

16.  Takes ridiculous risks for no reason/no gain. Thinks gambling is an expertise.

17.  Is an easy sell himself. Gets furious or hangs up the phone if you don’t immediately accede to his latest scheme. Calls you ‘pig headed’ if you hold doubt about even 1 thing out of 100.

18.  Speaks often of the Bible or God. Habitually forces tactical discussions into tangential conjecture about how he always does the right thing.

19.  Promises the moon, delivers a rotten melon. Tells you how lucky you are, or that it is your fault.

20.  Belittles everyone they connect or work with as not matching up to his standard of motive, ability, outcomes or goals.

21.  Let’s you know at all times and repeatedly, what it is you do not personally do well – never evaluates herself. Never shows humility. Never forgives.

22.  Rehashes in rambling, the same issue over and over and forgets that she just recently ranted about it before. Stalks victims.

23.  Pattern of boasting that someone whom he just met, is his close friend or business partner.

24.  Doesn’t know anyone from his neighborhood, high school or college days – seldom speaks with family.

25.  Her kids are never around her, are out of control themselves, druggies and are crooks or con men (women) as well.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post => 1

October 31, 2017 Posted by | Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , , , | 14 Comments

Calorie-Based Diet Pseudo Science Proves False

Will cutting portions and increasing exercise help reduce body mass? Yes, for the short term. But there is a cost to this approach; a cost which they do not tell you about. Body Mass Index is managed by the health of the endocrine and microbiome systems, not by calories.
Something was introduced into our food starting in 1995 which is costing American health dearly. In addition, recent studies have confirmed that our food phytonutrients are being diluted by farm technologies deployed over the last 25 years. Our current national obesity and health crisis is the horrid version of the future we all hoped would not occur way back in the days of dreaming about flying cars.  Now we must fight the fight. But we will win, as it is our lives, our health and our families which are at stake – all they have at stake is money and corrupt politics.

As a science professional and enthusiast, rather than flout my memorization of pat socially correct answers, I instead choose the track of actually putting the scientific method into action inside both my personal life as well as my professions. Observe, observe observe – measure, measure, measure – log, log, log – think, think, think – test test test and test again and again. These are disciplines which are essential to my nature. There is no try at this – there is only do. Pseudoscience thrives in a culture of the ‘try’ as we will see poignantly herein this blog.

So when the appeal to authority medical wisdom was handed to me by my doctor in the 90’s – that I needed to ‘increase my workouts and cut out desserts’, I took it as an acceptable hypothesis to test. After all, my best friend from college merely has to cut out his favorite dessert, moose tracks ice cream, for a month, and he is comfortably back into his college pants again. You see, weight and body mass is simply a matter of moral discipline. Right?  Most people do not have the gumption nor the persistence to test such common wisdom, especially when doled out by doctors (and there are large industry food players who rely financially on this foible of human nature).

But unfortunately, I have this nasty habit of skeptically testing that which I am told is truth.

‘Keto Flu’, ‘Macrocytic Anemia’ and ‘Thyroid Myxedema’ are modern health phenomena – they are not natural facets of normal body weight management – and are indicative that people today are having to go to extremes in order to keep their weight in check. Extremes of caloric reductions, endocrine remediation and intense physical activity – all of which our ancestors never had to even broach, ironically to live with much leaner body structure than we now possess.

Myth as the Key to Persistent Failure

Increasingly, health advisors are beginning to agree with what we common folk have been observing for decades: Calories In Calories Out (CICO) approaches to body mass management are not effective past anything but the short term. As well, obesity and ‘being overweight’ are unrelated conditions.

“For most of the last century, our understanding of the cause of obesity has been based on immutable physical law. Specifically, it’s the first law of thermodynamics, which dictates that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. When it comes to body weight, this means that calorie intake minus calorie expenditure equals calories stored. Surrounded by tempting foods, we overeat, consuming more calories than we can burn off, and the excess is deposited as fat. The simple solution is to exert willpower and eat less.

The problem is that this advice doesn’t work…”

~ Dr. David Ludwig and Mark Freedman; New York Times, Editorial: “Always Hungry? Here’s Why” May 16, 2014

And what we are combating is the pseudoscience of averages and old common wisdom, promoted by pseudo-skeptic preachers who are incompetent at understanding statistics or the disciplines of theory, hypothesis testing and risk. For example below:

Can someone please explain to me why, if we are unquestionably eating more as a country, we need to look further for the cause of the rising obesity rates?  … Sorry, but some en masse (sic) hormonally induced horizontal growth disorder is not possible, nor is it explained by any honest accounting of all of the evidence. … Americans are eating more. We weigh more as a result.

~ “Evelyn” at “Carbsanity” Blog; Oct 16, 2015,

Ah, the ‘simplest explanation’; such a wonder that trick. I can smell the stench of lazy-agenda permeating the room. This scientifically pregnant boast concerning one poorly grasped, single summary statistic is exactly the problem: we have NOT had an “honest accounting of all the evidence” precisely because of the Evelyn’s of the world. A recent Pew Research Study 1 found that on average, adult Americans consume 2480 calories per day – yet the average man burns 3100 calories per day and the average woman burns 2400 calories. What then do we say from averages and summary data (see medium fallax error below)? A significant majority (mathematically 55-70% of us under a chi-squared distribution function depending upon degrees of freedom) of us would be also chronically starving ‘skin and bones’ by now if these statistics were causally critical in path to an outcome; employing the very same methodology by which Evelyn has amateurishly misconstrued causality above (albeit our method involving more variable input data and two more resolved equations than she possessed).

Perhaps even more alarming is Ms. Evelyn’s reliance upon calories consumed as representative of ‘eating’. Curiously the same scientific mistake committed by those pushing their monopoly farm technologies in order to ‘feed the world’. We do not produce food to eat simply calories. We produce food to consume essential triglycerides, 16 proteins, 70 minerals and micro-nutrients, 11 B-vitamins and a series of other phytonutrients – of which even the most jaded cynical journals, seeking to defend farm technologies under assault, admit there has been a recent generational dilution.  Astonishingly, even a March 2017 propaganda study by the Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, specifically a priori commissioned so as to impugn nutrient decline research, admitted in the conclusion of the study that

Contemporaneous analyses of modern versus old crop varieties grown side-by-side, and archived samples, show lower mineral concentrations in varieties bred for higher yields where increased carbohydrate is not accompanied by proportional increases in minerals – a “dilution effect” 2

~ Journal of Food Consumption and Analysis, March 2017

In other words, the vast majority of all our caloric intake and 85% of grain based caloric intake US agriculture has undergone significant phytonutrient dilution. Please note that ‘higher yields’ is the politically correct code word for ‘plant growth hormone accelerant’ or ‘glyphosate’. Just two small bits of context framing there. No big deal. To complicate things, this decline is on top of – after the decline already documented from the period 1950 – 1999, before the really significant introduction of glyphosate to all grains (by 2004), and 85% of our caloric intake (see graph developed by above). 3

What is even worse is that you will find that most doctors (like both my allopath and integrative medicine physicians) know this already and privately caution their nutrient dilution vulnerable patients to change their diets.

But they cannot speak up, precisely because of the heavy handed bullshit and social pressure from the ‘Evelyn’s’ of this world.

Evelyn’s understanding of this issue is over 60 years aged, is failing to be successfully predictive or effective in application; and yet this pseudo-wisdom is still enforced by cadres of lazy blog-ranting researchers, just like Evelyn. Many of us, despite the data claims, are not “eating more as a country” – in fact significantly less for a large part of the population. See my stats below – which millions of Americans have replicated, albeit in not as much detail. People like Evelyn at Carbsanity count on the fact that individuals will not test their pablum with actual study and persistence.  This is a habit of social skeptics. Gargantuan proclamations based upon shallow data and common wisdom from another age of toxin-exposure altogether, along with the realization that the average citizen will never hold them to account for their claims. Thus these myths persist as a consequence of absurd levels of ego, dishonesty and no ‘skin in the game’ on the part of the claimants themselves (save for some anecdote about losing 5 lbs by cutting out sodas).

Besides, an en masse hormone disorder factor is not only possible, but scientifically compelling in this case – if it is induced by an agent which was recently added to 60%+ of our dietary caloric consumption, and into every meal of every single day of our entire lives – commensurate with a discrete change in critically risk-dependent statistics. Ockham’s Razor demands exactly an examination of just such an influence, when old predictives fail miserably, …as a first priority, and especially when this suspect new impacting risk mechanism is not tracked at all. This is how a research lab is run in the real world – it is just that with social skeptics – we effectively embargo real ethical scientific study by talking loudly about ‘science’, and a lot.

Not only does Evelyn’s diatribe suffer from a good dose of anchoring bias, but it features amateurish understandings of statistical inference, hypothesis testing and complex systems modeling as well. It ironically constitutes a scientific appeal to not conduct any science at all. Much more intelligence (not just data – a distinction which the poser does not understand) is required than this shallow statistic in order to imply sequitur causality. I don’t even have time inside this blog to go into the other errors this statement features: Filbert’s Law, ingens vanitatum, Simpson’s Paradox, fallacy of relative privation, Semmelweis Reflex, law of large numbers fallacy, and finally the coup de grâce of the statistical inference dilettante:

medium fallax error

/philosophy : pseudoscience : misrepresentation/ : the tendency to regard or promote the mean (μ) or other easily derived or comprehensive statistic as constituting an equivalent descriptive of the whole body of a set of data or a closely related issue – assuming immunity from the burden of identifying a causal critical path or developing testable mechanism to prove out the contention made (critical elements of scientific theory); or the process of misleading with statistical indications as to the makeup and nature of a body of data. I’ve got my head in the oven, and my ass in the fridge, so I’m OK.

This is why I am so adamant about incorporating at least 4 semesters of statistics, distribution arrival and simulation theory, hypothesis reduction theory and probability/confidence interval theory into the curricula of budding scientists and doctors. Otherwise they fall prey to exactly the prescriptive dosages of bullshit which ‘Evelyn’ is promoting here.

What I Learned Through Direct Observation and Testing

So, when my body mass skyrocketed starting in 1996, I was perplexed – and very concerned. You see I had already ‘cut out desserts’, ‘cut down on the pizza’, ‘ate smaller portions’, and ‘consumed a more balanced diet’. In fact, from 2001 until 2008, I cut a grand total of 2000 calories from my average daily diet and increased my average exercise by over 400 calories per day. I studied nutrition fervidly, and do still. Did my weight respond? Yes it did. But only for a while – then my BMI regressed. As well, there was a cost buried inside this response. An unavoidable (yes, mathematically deduced unavoidable) quality-of-life reducing cost in nutrition, about which the Evelyns of the world fail to inform us.

1.  Calorie intake and burn – CICO – only manages body mass over the short to (questionably) medium term. Cutting out 200 – 400 calories per day in my diet made no difference whatsoever in my body mass over the short, medium and long term. Calorie physiology does not follow a black box, salary and bank account paradigm. That model will not work when your endocrine, autoimmune and microbiome systems have been harmed.

2.  The techniques you practiced in the past to keep your body mass in line, will begin to fade in their effectiveness over time or will not work after that success and going forward. This is a progressive condition.

3.  A ‘balanced western diet’ cannot deliver the nutrient your body needs unless you consume well in excess of 3100 calories per day (see The War Against Supplements Continues to Revel in Harmful Pseudoscience).

4.  Consuming American grains over the medium term or longer will harm your health:

Endocrine Diseases, Skin Maladies, Bowel Diseases, Thyroid Disease, Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver, Mental Dysfunction & Degradation and Diabetes/Metabolic Disorders

5.  Limiting calories to lower than 2400 per day (as a response) over the medium term or longer eventually results in chronic diseases of malnutrition:

Macrocytic Anemia, Digestive and Endocrine Atrophy, Decline in Health and Wellbeing, Anxiety, Depression, Muscle Atrophy, Bowel Disorders, Kreb’s Cycle and Ketogenic Illnesses

6.  None of my great grandparents nor grandparents nor parents suffered with these challenges – regardless of their level of physical activity. And they ate a lot more (3 full meals a day and a snack).

7.  My challenge started in the Fall of 1995 and escalated rapidly during the 1995 – 2001 timeframe (when Glyphosate was introduced inside US food agriculture – 1995 – 2001: first wheat, then soy/canola, then finally corn).

8.  My kids suffered with these challenges starting in their teens, and suffered them worse than did I. And no, they did not ‘eat more’.

9.  These challenges export to nations other than the US, only when they begin to significantly import grains from the US. I have measured this in national strategies I have conducted, and advised governments quietly on this issue.

10.  Body Mass Index is managed by the health of the endocrine and microbiome systems, not by calories (within reason).

11.  In a modern toxic diet condition: Supplementation is Essential for Health & Well Being.

and finally the pièces de résistance

Something added into our food starting in 1995-2001 is harming American health severely, and the damage is showing up on our bathroom scales and in our endocrine and intestinal healthcare bills (see rise in thyroid disease and IBS).

We are saving $millions in the cost of producing food, and paying $trillions in the harm enacted from this corruption in pseudoscience.

The Polluted and Diluted Food Odyssey

Don’t ever give me a bullshit line of authority and expect it to go untested. Below, one can examine my record of testing the claim that ‘cutting portions and eating a balanced diet along with moderate exercise’ is the solution to polluted and diluted food. The result: This claim set is false. I underwent such severe anemia from malnutrition, that I was eventually forced to begin to increase my food intake – and importantly, begin methylfolate, stomach acid, humic acid, magnesium, protein and B12 supplementation along with a number of other nutrient additions. I never did get to the weight my doctor wanted. I fired that doctor, and the doctor I visited after that said ‘stop now, we have to find another approach’. Thank god for these supplements as well, they were a godsend. And where did I find all this critical (life-saving?) information on supplements? Not at ‘science based medicine’ ironically; rather through medical professional whisper, ‘quackery internet sties’ and friends. My quality of life improved dramatically. Thankfully I never got diabetes in this timeframe either. My hard work and study may have paid off there; averting a disease which has ravaged a good 25% of my family. Or perhaps I just got lucky in the genetic wheel of fortune in that regard, I do not know.

Below you will find an outline of my caloric intake mapped versus body mass index; along with the serious life and health degradation I experienced by adhering to a caloric restricted ‘balanced western diet’ and exercise. Agri-food and pharmaceutical companies depend upon the reality that most Americans will not test this for themselves.

Exhibit 1 – Over the Long Term CICO is Not Effective for Health nor Weight Management

note: workouts involved running 3 to 5 times a week, logging over 6,000 miles on treadmill and additional on asphalt, use of a weighted workout bar for 15 minutes of calisthenics and 10 minutes of lifting, pressing, rowing, situps on a Bowflex resistance machine.

What Did They Do to Us in 1995?

So this testing has led me to examine elsewhere for solutions and means by which to improve the endocrine and microbiome health of myself and my family. Thankfully, my kids are aware of the mistakes our agri-food industry has made over the last 25 years and are taking the steps to head off the resulting micro-biome destroying, nutrient dilution and toxin based maladies in their teens and early 20’s (see graphic to the right outlining recent diabetes trends in the US). 4 They too are cutting out grains and grain derivatives grown in the United States, unless organic (even then limited) – and supplementing with methylfolate, methylcobalamine, NADH, Vitamin D, collagen, pea protein and humic acid.

I should not have to be living with years of chronic macrocytic anemia and keto flu, just to keep my weight (not to mention health) in check. There is something wrong with this picture. The ‘Evelyns’ of the world cannot continue to enforce upon us the same old ‘smaller portions’ and ‘balanced western diet’ bullshit. That practice does not work and the tired old wisdom itself is failing Americans miserably …and harmfully so.

If our so-called ‘skeptics’ would get off their asses, quit armchair pontificating about bigfoot, UFO’s and homeopathy, and study the real scientific questions we face – that might, just might help.

Regardless of the denial and arm waving technicalities – Ockham’s Razor plurality has been surpassed, and mine is not the only probative case anecdote that exists. Millions exist; and like mine, under doctor advisement too. Doctors are listening to their patients and are calling for new research. We the victims are calling for ethical scientific action.

This is the horrid version of the future, we all hoped would not occur way back in the days of dreaming about highways filled with flying cars.  Now we must fight the fight. But we will win, as it is our lives, our health and our families which are at stake – all they have at stake is money, arrogance and aphorisms.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post => 5


August 25, 2017 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | | 4 Comments

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: