The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

The Roger Principle

Never place a tactician in charge of a strategic challenge. Their hammer sees every new problem as constituting another nail. Such exhibits the distinction between expert and strategic skill sets. Both are critical when it comes to solving multifaceted, novel and asymmetric challenges; however, it is the tyranny of the simple-minded, the disdainful miasma of the expert proceduralist, which renders the organizational/societal dynamic sometimes more daunting to solve than the challenge the organization was tasked to address in the first place.

During my decades of business advisement and observing personalities inhabiting my client organizations, there began to manifest to my observation, two consistent phenotypes of general professional personality inside a competitive workplace. At the extreme risk of oversimplification, and while acknowledging that many people bear traits in common with both species, we can frame these individuals along the profiles developed by Laurence J Peter in his book The Peter Principle,1 and American Psychologist Carl Rogers through his (psychology) theory of personal phenomenology.2 For simplicity’s sake, I call the first organizational personality, ‘Peter’, and the second organizational personality, ‘Roger’ – both in honor of their primary thought leading experts in business management and psychology. What the two researchers have outlined collectively is the essence of contrast between the organization procedural expert (Peter) and the multi-skilled adaptable leader (Roger) inside organizational development, function and more importantly, dysfunction.

The Peter Principle

Have you ever taken notice inside your graduating high school class, of the difference in success between people who made straight A’s say, in 5th Grade and those who flourished academically in high school and beyond. One may note that often, those who succeed early in a developmental process do not end up being those same individuals who succeed later in that developmental process. In similar fashion, many of those who thrive and excel at administrative tasks, fall prey to being overwhelmed or fail when faced with asymmetric or novel complex organizational challenges; ones say which might befit a higher leadership role. Such is the nature of what organizational behaviorist Laurence Peter outlined in his work called The Peter Principle. Individuals exhibit tactical competence, and then are promoted or rise through the ranks of a social structure, until such time as they encounter a level which outstrips their ability to perform well. This is shown on the left hand side of the chart above. Now set aside that this constitutes a rather simplistic view of organizational or societal development; and rather, embrace its principle in regard to understanding why such more tactically-minded persons tend to get upset when others who they perceive to be less skilled, are promoted or excel in their place. How can I, Salesperson of the Year for the Southwest US, not excel at being Vice President of North American Markets? How could such an event transpire? And how could a lowly Sales Engineer for the Northeast, who required an escorting sales professional on every contract he ever landed, then thrive so well as that Vice President? This is a dissonance I cannot fathom, much less bear!

Peters tend to outstrip their ability to perform at some point in a social or organizational succession;
whereas Rogers tend to thrive more effectively as they are exposed to increasing challenge.
There is a natural enmity between these two species.

What the Southwest Salesman of the Year fails to understand, is that the skills which might enable one to excel at cold calling and reading field customers, might not also translate so well into reading the tea leaves of market inflections, or promotion of a change in the offering of inventory or product being sold to a whole new customer base. The temptation is for the Southwest Salesperson of the Year to get angry with the Northeast Sales Engineer who took their coveted position – and begin to point out how they don’t follow the rules or don’t know how to fill out the sales credit authorization correctly, nor can they keep a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software log accurately. Peter, the regional sales lead, will naturally bear a subception based jealousy and dislike towards Roger, the new Vice President, which understandably is not given in return. Peter may begin to manufacture sins in his or her head, which justify their indignation over the Roger who serves to introduce or symbolizes threatening stimulus. Roger, the ‘ugly duckling’ in such a circumstance, may be flabbergasted by the sudden appearance of vitriol and criticism, coming from people whom he or she regarded to be their allies and business partners, many of whom were at one time their friends – long before the promotion was ever even let. It becomes important for the senior executive or CEO, to spot their Peters and Rogers, and manage them effectively through organizational structure and reward – before Peter creates a problem and disintegrates the organization morale or its function.

Subception

/psychology : self deception : subconscious perception/ : a perceptual defense that involves unconsciously applying strategies to prevent a troubling stimulus from entering consciousness. The method of deceiving one’s self and others in the process of cynicism, jealousy or denial. A process of expressing unrealized subconscious vitriol, in which one habitually creates artificial ‘violations’ (usually forms of administrative or social protocol which their target ‘does wrong’) which their target of jealously or hate keeps committing – in order for the subception holder to internally justify their ill feelings toward their target.

Immature Peters will often resort to the crafting of negative clique-like social clubs in reaction to the presence of a Roger whom they have elected to target. If they cannot win by professional standards, they can always revert back to high-school style politics – especially inside an organizational structure with weak leadership. In this same way, the perception of science is ruled by Peters of social skepticism – they have failed at science as a career, so now they must make others pay for this failure. Moreover they must find some way other than competence or resilience, through which to be accepted at the level of power and prestige given a scientist.

Another feature of a Peter is that he or she gets ahead by claiming credit for the success of the group, regardless of whether or not they actually added anything of merit into its value provision. The Peter calls the meetings to order, makes sure everyone is on task and puts on an air of authority. The Peter will speak often of ‘there is no ‘I’ in ‘team’ but will stand exemplary of the supplemental apothegm ‘but there is often a hidden ‘me’.’ A Peter bears this concealed ‘me’ inside everything they undertake; and moreover, it is precisely this ‘taking of the credit’ which serves ultimately to be their Achilles’ heel, under The Peter Principle to begin with. This unmerited credit is what propels the Peter into those lofty levels wherein their incompetence can be ‘suddenly exposed’. At some point, it is not enough to merely be a titular head of the group. It is not enough to be in control and enforce ISO or ASME standards and protocols. It is not enough to patrol the hallways and make sure everyone is at their desk staring at a piece of paper at 8:30 am. As one rises in responsibility, the titular head more and more actually has to do stuff; make informed and ‘why and how’ based decisions inside a context of individual naked accountability. If a Peter’s entire career consists of merely who, what, where and when coordination, then they will fail miserably at the why and how decision set.

A Roger in contrast does not bear an innate craving to be recognized as the head of the group, nor to control others, nor to hold a whip of conformance, nor to garner credit for the group’s success. He is not necessarily the extreme of a polymath or pariah, as those types of individuals can be grating inside a team structure. Instead, a Roger gains his satisfaction through the accomplishment of objectives and goals – and knowing how and why such process worked. He is quietly passed from team to team to fix things, and must advance by the principle of ‘a prophet is never accepted in his home town’.3 For a Roger, even though they may rise through the ranks for solving complex novel and asymmetric problems, they soon find that the more they change settings, the faster they rise. This because they skip over The Peter Principle games played by each Peter Organization of which they were once a member. This is unfortunate but can be observed as the key to many people’s successful career paths – they must eventually sidestep and pass by the Peters, if the Peter Organization is not mature enough to spot the circumstance in their own ranks.

Skepticism and Science are Ruled by Peters

There exists a difference between what is defined in Organizational Behavior as a goal, and that sub-element which is defined as an objective. We observe this disconnect inside skepticism as well, wherein the fake skeptic regards the goal of skepticism to be a ‘conformance to knowledge’ on the part of the public4 – when such a mission constitutes merely one non-critical path objective. The actual goal of skepticism is the creation/refinement of knowledge inside a scientific context, or the opposition to scientific oppression inside a free society; as those constitute our first true priority. They are the heads on the very tippy top of the skepticism totem-pole. One of the objectives of a skeptic organization is to ensure that pseudoscience is not promulgated freely, of course – but this should never be practiced to the extreme point wherein our goals to create and refine knowledge or alleviate suffering are impinged. In such a circumstance, our objectives have become our chief obstacles to our goal. This latter condition is more what we face today inside science. Science is ruled by Peters. They thrive upon order and discipline, but most importantly conformance – especially conformance which best serves to place them in charge. Whereas a Roger tends to thrive better than does a Peter in the midst of novelty and unscripted complexity. Roger is a problem solver and gains from disorder. Peter is a status quo manager, and loses from it.

Ethical skepticism is all about knowing where this critical knowledge dynamic inflection point resides. Tacticians rarely grasp inflection points in asymmetry. This is why they often fail when pushed outside their comfort zones. This inability to see the forest for the trees is what distinguishes Peter from Roger. Such dilemma is exhibited no better than by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book Antifragile, regarding what he calls the Green Lumber Problem.5

Green Lumber Problem

The Green Lumber Problem involves an essential misunderstanding between which facts are relevant versus those which are not, or which objectives are critical path and those which are not, as they may regard decision goals under uncertainty (multifaceted novelty and asymmetry).

“In one of the rare noncharlatanic books in finance, descriptively called What I Learned Losing A Million Dollars, the protagonist makes a big discovery. He remarks that a fellow called Joe Siegel, the most active trader in a commodity called “green lumber” actually thought that it was lumber painted green (rather than freshly cut lumber, called green because it had not been dried). And he made a living, even a fortune trading the stuff [and went in to ask when he could begin trading ‘other colors of lumber’].6

The Green Lumber Problem elicits this issue of distinguishing one who can thrive in doing anything, from one who only thrives because they understand all the trivia, nuance and procedure surrounding a single discipline in which they have chosen to immerse them self. While this approach to knowledge and skill is certainly useful, it becomes a hindrance when such simplicity of role, is enforced as an effectiveness panacea. Joe Siegel, undoubtedly pissed off a lot of Peters in green lumber, by excelling inside their discipline, not knowing what the heck green lumber even was. Joe Siegel is simply one step removed from the thought, ‘Maybe there is a better way to do this. Maybe simply deriving wealth off the trade of the lumber is not the primary goal after all’. By thinking past the trivia and the rules, Joe has begun to develop a different ethical mindset than the 30 Peters who populate the cubicles around him.

There exists a difference between informing one’s self to establish control of a system, and informing one’s self to achieve a goal. In contrast with Siegel, a Peter crafts a world in which they are fully armed to know and control all within their reach – their goal is power. This foible tends to express itself inside organizations as rice-bowls, silo’s and kingdoms – the very elements of stagnation which an external consultant will find sport in disrupting. Peters bear a tendency to mistake academic knowledge for an ability to distinguish a goal from simply a critical or non-critical objective. This delineates as much as any single principle, the demarcation between academia and business. Those who can’t do, teach.

“Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.” ~ Laurence J Peter

…or as well, to realize that they possess little or no actual bearing on the goal at hand.

The Roger Principle and Why Rogers are So Threatening to Peters

Psychologist Carl Rogers outlined a series of propositions as to why the proceduralist is so highly threatened by the multi-skilled leader. Interestingly the axioms also explain why the multi-skilled leader rarely bears such animosity in return. Animosity is not critical path. Yes, success may serve to make a publican out of any barbarian; however, it is the flexible and tolerant nature of the Roger, which more readily explains why he or she is less apt to return hate for such hate. [To be fair, it should be noted that The Roger Principle is somewhat akin to Laurence Peter’s ‘Summit Competence’ principle elicited in Chapter 9 of the referenced book. However, Peter did not delve into the aspects of ‘congruency’ outlined below, which make this rare phenomenon possible.] Essentially Carl Rogers contended that all individuals (organisms) exist in a continually changing world of experience – what he called the ‘phenomenal field’, of which they are the center. One of his key (of nineteen) axioms outlines the principle thusly.7

Psychological adjustment exists when the concept of the self is such that all the sensory and visceral experiences of the organism are, or may be, assimilated on a symbolic level into a consistent relationship with the concept of self.

The proceduralist immerses them self in the discipline at hand. They are going to make an A in the class. They will strive to be the task expert. They will strive to rule the organization with regard to the single expertise set on their plate. This serves to align their experiences, as symbols which are now in concert with their perception of self. It is heady to be ‘the expert’ – and those who fall for such charade typically hunger for control, both of environment and organization. There arises a problem however, when this type of personality is thrust outside of their comfort zone. This Peter will exhibit a visceral dissonance, an anger which then erupts on their preferred target – the Roger who appears to not only be the source of the dissonance, but moreover appears to be capitalizing from it. To Peter, Roger certainly could not actually be thriving, because if Peter cannot thrive, then no one can – therefore in Peter’s eyes, Roger has to be taking advantage of the situation. Carl Rogers continues with two more of his nineteen key axioms, related to exactly this:

Psychological maladjustment exists when the organism denies awareness of significant sensory and visceral experiences, which consequently are not symbolized and organized into the gestalt of the self structure. When this situation exists, there is a basic or potential psychological tension.

Any experience which is inconsistent with the organization of the structure of the self may be perceived as a threat, and the more of these perceptions there are, the more rigidly the self structure is organized to maintain itself.

Therefore, Peter will almost always double-down in order to protect the gestalt of self structure upon which they so heavily depend. Anything; logic, science, reason, facts or even life itself if necessary are elements subservient to this Maslow-style need inside the mind of the pathological Peter. They will turn heaven and earth to keep things they way they prefer to view them. While this is understandable as a personal foible, persons bearing these traits should seldom be allowed to unilaterally manage the public perception of science. This is why we need ethical skepticism – the tyranny of the Peter.

The Roger Principle

/philosophy : science : psychology : leadership/ : the principle which cites that a multi-skilled, creative, congruent and leadership oriented personality will routinely rank level relative to his or her peers while performing lower organizational or administrative jobs; however will begin to increasingly thrive as they are promoted up through an organization and are exposed to more multifaceted, novel and asymmetric challenge. This will tend to anger the peers who were in contrast limited by means of a Peter Principle. Roger Principle individuals are usually targeted for disdain by tactic/talent limited persons, often out of jealousy or dissonance; and are usually flagged early on by their performance in more chaotic tasks or situations involving uncertainty. They can make for excellent CEO’s, strategists and thought leaders.

In contrast with Peter, Roger just shrugs off the uncertainty and instead focuses upon the overall sequence of critical path objectives, or upon developing new understanding in absence of such knowledge. Yes, details are important, but they are not what dictate one’s thinking nor boundaries. The objective of thought is to create new ways to view a critical path and to challenge why something is done in a particular fashion in the first place. A Roger does not want to drive off a cliff and cite how good his gas mileage is on the way from the edge of the cliff to the bottom. This is why Roger tolerates Peter, much better than Peter can stand Roger. Peter cannot fathom the reasons for departure from his neatly ordered environment or pathway to dominance and control. Rogers relate to a goal of succeeding and not one of personal control. Carl Rogers finishes his nineteen axioms with this exact point.

When the individual perceives and accepts into one consistent and integrated system all her sensory and visceral experiences, then she is necessarily more understanding of others and is more accepting of others as separate individuals.

A Roger can readily step in and be any Peter, but a Peter finds it extraordinarily difficult to be a Roger.
A Roger tolerates a Peter very easily; but a Peter finds fault in everything a Roger says or does.
Roger sees Peter as an essential aspect of the functioning company; Peter does not view Roger in that same way.
This is why Roger advances, and Peter does not. Peter cannot perceive this dynamic, so he blames Roger for his career stagnation.

One may humorously note that a Peter, can often be synonymous with a ‘dick’. It is precisely their anger over the dissonance derived from mismatch between their phenomenological self and the environment in which they find them self (or wish to dominate), which tempts their observer to entertain such a nickname. In similar contrast, a Peter may view a Roger as an opportunist, looking to get a good ‘Rogering’ out of every new opportunity which arises inside an organization. Each may regard the other as a dick or a shark. Such is the comical nature of human competitiveness. In the end, the nicknames are not fair at all (and sexist to boot) – in that diversity of skill and personality in the workplace is exactly what makes for a strong and effective organization in the first place.

Why Roger Succeeds While Peter Often Stagnates

Peter succeeds at the outset because they have established them self as master of the topic at play. Roger on the other hand, succeeds because he or she has honed specific traits which serve to enhance mere fundamental competency. A Roger will succeed at pretty much anything they choose to do, save for many compulsory perfunctory or administrative tasks – often stumbling from sheer boredom, rather than any particular shortfall in acumen or skill. Rogers are C-student bosses who regularly pissed off all but their most senior college instructors; who hire privileged A-student Peters who were those same pissed-off instructors’ darlings.  Peter leverages his strength through fastidious displays of competence and rules following. Peter wants his benefactors to know that, by placing him in charge, things will go as planned; even if that plan involves running off a cliff and claiming the fantastic gas mileage, laying off one quarter of the employee base, increasing productivity regardless of the life-cost of the associates burdened with that increase, or extracting the wealth of the corporation to elite European bond trading accounts. A Peter will obediently trade and sacrifice higher goals, to increase his power base and money flow – as you see, for Peter these objectives served to obscure the real goal to begin with.

A Peter regards the goal of his company to be funneling efficiency-precipitated earnings to powerful outsiders/cronies.
A Roger entertains a greater mandate for his corporation – and disobeys this instructed procedure.


However, as outsiders begin to see Peter as the spoils-enabling character, we will observe more corporate failure and consolidation;
along with a greater disparity between the worker and the extraction classes.


Flat organizations – hollow brands inhabited by CFO’s and supply chain specialists, lacking an authenticity of mission;
bereft of the vision and ethical backbone necessary in defending their stakeholders from creeping enslavement.

Carl Rogers opines on the Roger Principle below, through outlining those character traits which make this unique style of person successful. A Roger bears the following strengths:8

A growing openness to experience – they move away from defensiveness and have no need for subception (a perceptual defense that involves unconsciously applying strategies to prevent a troubling stimulus from entering consciousness).

An increasingly existential lifestyle – living each moment fully – not distorting the moment to fit personality or self-concept but allowing personality and self-concept to emanate from the experience. This results in excitement, daring, adaptability, tolerance, spontaneity, and a lack of rigidity and suggests a foundation of trust. “To open one’s spirit to what is going on now, and discover in that present process whatever structure it appears to have”

Increasing organismic trust – they trust their own judgment and their ability to choose behavior that is appropriate for each moment. They do not rely on existing codes and social norms but trust that as they are open to experiences they will be able to trust their own sense of right and wrong.

Freedom of choice – not being shackled by the restrictions that influence an incongruent individual, they are able to make a wider range of choices more fluently. They believe that they play a role in determining their own behavior and so feel responsible for their own behavior.

Creativity – it follows that they will feel more free to be creative. They will also be more creative in the way they adapt to their own circumstances without feeling a need to conform.

Reliability and constructiveness – they can be trusted to act constructively. An individual who is open to all their needs will be able to maintain a balance between them. Even aggressive needs will be matched and balanced by intrinsic goodness in congruent individuals.

A rich full life – he describes the life of the fully functioning individual as rich, full and exciting and suggests that they experience joy and pain, love and heartbreak, fear and courage more intensely.

It is not that we as ethical skeptics necessarily aspire to be solely a Roger in makeup of character. Peters are essential to any organization or society. Rather we should seek to avoid the negative pitfalls of becoming a Peter – infusing enough of the creative, free, orgasmic fascination with wonder and discovery to compel us to not fall into the trap of becoming a Peter of skepticism.

It is this essential nature of congruency which we seek to develop within ourselves- that which the universe is asking us to learn. After all, we know how to discern that which is relevant from that which is not; and as well the goal, from that which merely might appear to be an objective.

     How to MLA cite this article:

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Roger Principle”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 6 Apr 2019; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-9zc

April 6, 2019 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism, Social Disdain | , | Leave a comment

Six Vaccinial Generation Trends Fueled by Concealed Profits

Vaccines, once critical interventions which saved lives, have morphed into a loss leader product. A key lever in turbocharging pharmaceutical company price-to-earnings and return-on-research investment performance benchmarks. This robust financial boon is but a moon-cast shadow compared to the cost which is born by US families in terms of permanent injury to their children. Six clear warning signs are manifesting socially today, which both serve to confirm such injury, and as well forebode critical implications in terms of US national security in the decades to come.

Within this article we will examine three issues regarding vaccine injury. First, how the industry deludes itself unto ignorance as to how lucrative and conflict-of-interest-inducing vaccine profits indeed are. Second, how the industry deludes itself into dismissing vaccine precaution over one or two linear induction heavy exclusion bias mega-data studies, which stand as ‘proof of an absence’ (pseudoscience) of vaccine entailed risk. Third, it will highlight and document six key indicators underway now which confirm the risk around which parents and other scientifically literate observers are sounding alarm. An update of my Poisson arrival distribution estimate of both subclinical and detected detriments in cerebral function impact upon this generation of kids is also tendered herein.

The Concealed Profits: Blended Cost Fraud

Projections for next year revenues globally derived from the sales of vaccines are on the order of $60 billion US dollars. This reflects a current revenue growth rate of 11% (historically 10 to 15%).1 While these sales represent a mere 4.5% of the overall global $1.35 trillion in market revenue for all pharmaceuticals, if we consider that there are only a subset of companies which manufacture vaccines out of the thousands which compose the pharmaceutical market, this represents a much higher portion of those companies’ revenue bases – becoming critical elements inside their glowing financial performance reports. So much so, that according to the Wall Street Journal, industry leader Merck relies upon vaccine profits as the key beacon inside their annual report.2 However, for the most part the direct profitability of vaccines is hidden through sleight-of-hand expense manipulation on the part of pundits seeking to obstruct and cloud their accountability to the at-risk stakeholder public.

The core principle resides in this – heavy investment/depreciation/research development is conducted inside stand alone, clinical-stage, heavy on one-time-expense startups – who are then bought by the largest 16 vaccine producers once their vaccine has begun its profitability stride. Thereafter, these profits can be tucked inside the blended-expense financials of a much larger corporation. This latter key deception renders the profit level from vaccines hidden from the lay public, and hinges upon this: one cannot distinguish the direct expenses which relate solely to vaccine channel activity, as distinct from the overall business expense base – thereby distributing the actual profitability of vaccines as a product group to appear to be an aspect of the entire business.

If we examine just vaccines as a business segment, this principle can be expressed in the converse. As a business person it is wrong and/or illegal to take costs from less profitable businesses, and load them onto more profitable businesses in order to reduce the profit/taxes reported by the more profitable business. This sleight-of-hand method is exemplified no better than in the pro forma shenanigans framed by authors Stanley Plotkin MD, Walter Orenstein MD and Paul Offit MD, in their book Vaccines: Expert Consult.3 The three authors are not experts on business strategy and finance. In their publication, they employ this surreptitious method of blended-ratio profit and loss calculation (see left hand side of P&L table below), even framing it post tax (a professional error), and failing to use industry standard profit and loss practices, in order to downplay the total profit wound up inside vaccine sales (estimating it erroneously to be around 10% of revenue). Take note that both the expense to sales indices and pro forma which Plotkin, et al. employed on the left in the table below, were Merck Group’s in structure and blended/averaged/distributed cost percentages for their whole business (see Merck Group Consolidated Income Statement for 2017).4 These expense ratios are not representative of their expense structures relating to vaccines at all. This is fast-with-numbers deception on the part of Plotkin, et al. in their book’s misrepresentation of the industry (to be clear: not on the part of any particular tax filing, individual, corporation nor Merck Group). How can a doctor, who has been compensated to the tune of multiple millions of dollars in direct and indirect compensation by all of the Big Four vaccine manufacturers, who cannot even manage his own household income and expenses, nor has ever actually run a business P&L, then pretend to ‘expert consult’ the public on the finances of his very funders?5  It is a fair question.

If similar techniques, allocating costs from ‘cost heavy’ business channels and into ‘cost light’ channels, in order to make the latter group’s profit numbers appear to be less, were to be committed by a business in their tax/earnings reporting, this would be known by another industry and legal name: Fraud.

In the (full industry) Profit & Loss comparatives to the right you can examine a contrast between this bullshit method of profit formulation and the real contribution margin method of cost accounting for vaccines. We also employ here the correct market revenue of $60 billion USD, and not ‘$24 billion’. To be gracious, we shall call the bullshit method, the ‘Blended Cost Method’. I have caught several clients over the decades employing blended cost methodologies to hide embezzlement, mafia payoffs, shipping and ordering mistakes, non-performing managers, weak divisions, or conceal malfeasance from investors or corporate officers and vulnerable companies from hostile acquisition. Vaccine expenses should not be accounted for in this manner. If you and I went out to dinner, and I had Filet Mignon, escargot, cheese cake, caviar and a bottle of fine French wine, while you only had a single Pellegrino water – yet I insisted that we split the check 50/50, you would be pretty damn pissed at the incumbent dishonesty. This practice of blended expense index averaging is no different than that style of dinner check bamboozle.

When fully leveraged, non-slack, direct costs are applied to a contribution profit and loss pro forma and against just the associated vaccine revenue of a non clinical-stage vaccine in its sales maturation curve (the way it is professionally done by real business strategists and those who set direct work content and indirect cost standards inside pharmaceutical manufacturing operations), profit under such vaccine business activity is actually on the order of 80 to 85% EBITDA and 70 to 75% net profit. In other words, vaccines are nigh to six times more profitable than other drugs on average – when accounting is professionally done, benchmark to benchmark.

Why are vaccines so profitable in comparison to the erstwhile 14% which pharma companies make on their other products?6 Because vaccines are quasi-mandatory, are skyrocketing in price (not cost),7 enjoy luxurious economies of scale, they require no marketing and very lean/leveraged/subsidized logistics, place little demand upon corporate sales general administrative and overhead, and further do not have to pass the same rigor/delay in 3-phase clinical trials which other drugs must suffer.8 Most lot monitoring and factory inspection/certification is borne by the FDA itself.9 Expenses to influence legislation and pay off representatives, squelch countering voices through fake skeptics, media and universities, pay rebates and chargebacks to pharmacy benefit managers etc. do not count as ‘Sales and Marketing’ expenses inside GAAP accounting ethics (as these are simply distributions of profits – and not qualified expenses). Counting this as OSG&A allows vaccine companies to lower their effective tax on earnings to around 10% by ‘expensing’ what otherwise would ethically be considered earnings.10 11 Finally, vaccines do not bear the 4% litigation exposure allocation which do most other drugs (hidden inside the figures used on the left of this chart), and what penalties are paid out in legal compensation, are borne directly by a surcharge on those being injured in the first place.12

What a deal! I would love to operate a business enjoying all the above competitive advantages. Were I a fake human, I would live like a rock star – having millions in my personal accounts. I would be a fake skeptic to the nth degree, in order to protect such a gravy train. But most of all – I would hide this cash cow at all costs. I would enlist unpaid apparatchiks to help me obfuscate the issue socially. I would enlist the aid of the media and ensure that any government administration of my domain, represented me and not the people who they are there to serve and protect.

So the value of vaccine margin contribution is of enormous importance to the participating pharmaceutical industry. It not only constitutes 1/3rd of a typical manufacturer’s total retained earnings each reporting quarter, but more importantly, since its segment growth rate is almost twice that of all other activity – vaccines hold down the lion’s share of price/earnings growth (Δ P to E) performance sensitivity, ergo – they have the largest impact upon the company’s stock price.

See Why Novavax is Up 60% in 2018 by The Motley Fool13

This is why the Wall Street Journal reported vaccines’ impact on the stock price for Merck in the way that it did.14 Investor ears perk up when they hear about new vaccine rollouts and clinical stage startups – as they know that they are vastly more profitable than are classic maturation pathway drugs. This savvy ilk of investor tends to cut through the blended cost bullshit (they get this trick too) and invest directly in, and only in, vaccines. Were the Plotkin/Orenstein/Offit method actual reality, vaccines would never impact stock price at all – never garner such attention. The real world actuality is that vaccine development bears enormous significance in impact upon both retained earnings and growth of P/E ratios of a company. If one considers vaccines to further act as loss leaders (albeit profitable loss leaders) – a mandatory sale which forces a customer into a store (or in front of a doctor in this context), the actual opportunity contribution revenue derived from mandatory vaccines is possibly twenty times this global revenue level.

The conflict-of-interest incentive to create new vaccines is therefore unethically and unsustainably high. A vaccine against ebola is an act of mercy. A vaccine against chicken pox, is an act of monetization.

This is why you see people like Paul Offit and Skeptical Raptor clamoring to develop new vaccines and legislate them as compulsory, despite there being ‘little profit’. Yeah right. They will masquerade their monetization scheme as an errand of mandatory mercy.

This all serves to demonstrate why vaccines are the pinnacle of profit for the participating pharmaceutical companies, belying the mere deception imparted by their blended profit margins. Their financial contribution leverages the ‘Return on Research’ performance mark, an industry benchmark for evaluating pharmaceutical corporation financial performance,15 into much higher and more attractive levels as compared to other drug manufacturers – thereby making the vaccine pharmaceutical company a much more lucrative investment compared to the run of the mill competition who must labor under normal business pressures and costs.

Do not listen to inexpert voices such as Skeptical Raptor or Paul Offit on this. The vast majority of these clowns have never run a scientific lab, never made a scientific discovery, never run a business and have never developed a contribution cost decision analysis nor any form of business or market strategy. They are poseurs – with self-identified ‘skepticism’ as their main qualification. They alter the facts (financials) to fit their agency – and hope that you don’t possess the expertise to counter their shallow inexpert pablum.16 They base their pre-emptive agency upon torfuscation, 1% significant inductive, abductive and panductive inference,17 and shallow inexpert academic study – not plenary science. ‘Vaccines don’t cause autism’ is not a scientific hypothesis,18 nor is it even provable by inference – never get your science from a social-bullying dolt who constantly screams this, no matter what letters they advertise behind their name. They attempt to negate your moral and ethical right to at-risk-stakeholder’s voice through sophomoric and ironic accusations of ‘Dunning-Kruger’. A failure to understand that stakeholders have a duty and right to intervene, even in science, when they observe risks, abrogations of ethics, and perceptions of impact which are being ignored by professionals. This is not tantamount to pretending to be one of those professionals, as such accusation constitutes a dilettante straw man/red herring argument which does nothing but serve to destroy the credibility of the person offering it. Not bearing even the first level of acumen necessary to grasp these principles; they are nothing but malicious idiots. I wonder if Raptor, Offit or Novella invest this same level of cursory and lazy incompetence in the other ‘skeptic’ topics inside which they serve as agency (see Ten Reasons Why People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible)? A key hint here which you will find consistent with all fake skeptics – laziness becomes a method of inference.

Vaccine caution voices hold all the necessary elements of hypothesis (i.e. science):
Necessity, Hundreds of Supporting Studies, Conservancy of Risk, Wittgenstein Definition, Parsimony, Address and
Inform Duty Compliance, Supporting Intelligence and Physical/Physiological Mechanism.19

Those who see vaccines as a panacea and profit center hold a couple shallow inductive
utile absentia academic studies (10 specific weak inductive studies by their own meta-study)

– illegitimate money and media control. All this, incompetent and malevolent pseudoscience.20

This sixfold higher contribution margin potential, coupled with an assumption of safety based upon little research, is why our vaccine schedule has grown from a 7 event one in 1983, to a current 53 event schedule in 2019.21 It is why investors clamor to throw dollars at vaccine clinical stage startups.22 All of this to support an industry sub-vertical which operates sans any testing or safety research, or any form of followup study (ignoro eventum) – all of which are the ethical standards inside every other branch of consumer medicine.

How Professionals Cultivate Ignorance Over the Incumbent Risks and Cost

But there is a cost which private citizens are inheriting inside this play, and quietly bearing – part of the unacknowledged value chain of vaccines. The cost is elicited no better than in the closing statement by the author of the Taylor-Swerdfeger-Eslick ‘Vaccines are not associated with…’ ‘meta-analysis’ (sic) referenced above, which narrowed the field of inductive ‘proof’ (there is no such thing, especially in proving an absence) down to ten inductive cohort and case control ‘best evidence’ studies. We shall deal with those ten pieces of scientific garbage in another blog article. But for now, Dr. Eslick:

As an epidemiologist I believe the data that is presented in this meta-analysis. However, as a parent of three children I have some understanding of the fears associated with reactions and effects of vaccines. My first two children have had febrile seizures after routine vaccinations, one of them a serious event. These events did not stop me from vaccinating my third child, however, I did take some proactive measures to reduce the risk of similar adverse effects. I vaccinated my child in the morning so that we were aware if any early adverse reaction during the day and I also gave my child a dose of paracetamol 30 min before the vaccination was given to reduce any fever that might develop after the injection. As a parent I know my children better than anyone and I equate their seizures to the effects of the vaccination by increasing their body temperature. For parents who do notice a significant change in their child’s cognitive function and behaviour after a vaccination I encourage you to report these events immediately to your family physician and to the ‘Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System’.23

   ~ Dr. Guy D. Eslick, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology and Medical Statistics at The University of Sydney, Australia

Indeed Dr. Eslick, my son too had an adverse reaction event in the hours after the DTaP vaccination. Thereafter the ‘event’ involved six excruciating weeks of nightly fever and pain. We were told that vaccines were safe and that this is just a typical effect that will go away. My son never again looked us in the eye after almost that very hour of the ‘typical adverse event’. As parents, we were not trained to recognize this as a symptom of cerebral trauma – and neither was our physician in reality. Neither was he even asked to watch for its occurrence. My son’s function changed from one of bright eyed, expressive and engaging – to what we recognize now was encephalitic, brain injury, shut off from us all – in a matter of hours. Now at age 17 he still cannot tie his shoes, count change, nor tell time.

Our first documentation of a persistent functional-skills problem came in K-4 kindergarten. The diagnosis inside a medical plan did not arrive until age 7. Too late to apply for NVICP remedy, too late to be included your ‘best evidence’ Madsen-Hviid styled ‘study’ – a study design which sampled an average medical plan age of 4.5 years, essentially claiming that my son’s type of injury does not even exist. My son’s case was one of severe impact. How was this study supposed to detect cases of even milder impact? And how many cases of milder impact are there? The simple fact is Dr. Eslick, you and your team of authorities do not know these answers, and you have designed your studies to avoid these questions. This is what serves to establish them as academic pseudoscience.

No, the reality persists that parents are having a hard time attaching the neurological/autoimmune/endocrine malady to its cause – precisely because of their separation in time, a lack of doctor education/vigilance, our collective inability to measure such impacts and the current political ill will surrounding the issue. Not the converse that vaccine and malady are ‘coincidentally juxtaposed in child’s age’ as you and your cabal have pushed without evidence. More cases are obfuscated than are manufactured, by a long shot. You are simply exploiting the convenience that most of the public cannot grasp the trick of disproof-statistics you have pulled. I, and millions of other parents including scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors and other highly educated professionals, contend that

1.  You carry a fantasy in your institutionally-cocooned mind that vaccine caution voices all live in rural American trailer parks and get our information off anti-science websites. The reality is that you get your information from pre-cooked propaganda, not science. You boasted with the word evidence, as this evidence was about 1% into the subject domain at best.

2. To someone who understands and has done real science, your meta-analysis was not a meta-analysis in the least; but rather an Interpretive/Abstract ‘Meta-Synthesis’.24 You could not combine statistical power between these studies – as they were all apples-to-oranges in both quantitative and qualitative attribute (a requirement of a meta-analysis). Who are you trying to kid? Calling an interpretive abstract survey a ‘meta-analysis’ is a well known trick of science fraud. I am surprised and disappointed that you employed this inside such an important issue to so many people.

Nor was it even that good as an interpretive summary article – as its hypothesis was not supported by the sufficiency nor type of inference employed. ‘Believing the data’ means nothing, as it is the study design, accidental exclusions and inclusions and how you treat them, the way in which the study draws its inference, confidence and method of attachment to hypothesis, along with the parsimonious incremental risk nature of the hypothesis, which are important in science. All features of real science which this study failed miserably. The fact that you did not get this, is illuminating. Cancer epidemiology is not a sound underpinning for understanding systemic epidemiology (see Systemic Failure chart above and to the right). One is discrete, the other is continuous – totally different objective/analytical bases.

3.  You do not know that your kids were not harmed, because you have no direct-measure nor reference usable in telling so. This style of injury will only show up in backward-looking longitudinal aggregate case and control comparatives (hints below). You should have already known this as an epidemiologist. It was, and is, your responsibility now (ignoro eventum). ‘My child had a severe reaction and is fine.’ is called an anecdote. ‘My child had a severe reaction and was harmed for life.’ is called ‘Ockham’s Razor necessity’ under hypothesis reduction theory, and is not equivalent to anecdote. This is usually taught in undergraduate Biomedical Informatics 233: Intermediate Biostatistics: Analysis of Discrete Data, Study Design and Epidemiology, just in case you missed that class. Study up on the topic sometime, it might be useful in your career.

4.  You possess no awareness (being an Australian not American citizen) that the VAERS/NVICP system is a joke and serves/does absolutely nothing, except make people like you feel good, or provide a buzzword to allow you to pose (to the dilettante) as if you know something of merit about this issue. They may fall for it, but a parent who has been through this knows it better than do you.

5.  You are not aware that the vast majority of even severe vaccine injuries get no compensation by this banana republic award court (NVICS) fantasy you carry in your mind to assuage your conscience over the vaccine injuries you do know about. Despite my son’s permanent disability, we were not able to get it diagnosed and understood until a full 4 years after the court filing window closed. We were told that it would pass; as our doctors were not trained on recognizing vaccine injury to begin with.

6.  Despite this ethically being your job, you have not examined scientifically the measures for A’ and B’ in the Poisson Arrival chart in section 6. below, and truly are not engaged in your profession, nor fully versed in the claims you publish as ‘science’. Fortunately two researchers have developed injury estimates in your absence (as annotated on Poisson arrival distribution graphic below).25 I have to do this analysis as my third job – after my first two jobs, to pay for the $2.6 million needed to care for a disabled child. People like me have to do the real work, while you and your peers sit on your snide and pretensive asses; doing very little except work to increase your personal acclaim and fortune. And finally,

7.  Brain inflammation markers need to be measured for each vaccinated child at 4 months (pre-vax) and 4 years of age, and be regularly tracked through longitudinal time-series study – just the type of deductive research that the NCVIA of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) legislation had specified be done, but was never implemented. Yes, the matter is that important – and this serious definitive and probative study would comprise conclusive deductive methodology without endangering lives through cohort-risk direct observation. In absence of such ethical diligence you are guessing (lying to the public) about your knowledge of this topic.

Yes, this is the unethical system you and your cohorts support – but you, and the obtuse apparatchiks who spout the mandatory rhetoric are too lazy to look at this. What you are supporting Dr. Eslick is called an Omega Hypothesis. It is pseudoscience – and in this case, highly harm-imparting pseudoscience, and not just a blurry photo of Bigfoot. You have compromised the integrity of science, knowing that you would never in your at-risk career dare publish a result which ran counter to the prevailing dogma.

Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – the argument which is foisted to end all argument, period. A conclusion promoted under such an insistent guise of virtue or importance, that protecting it has become imperative over even the integrity of science itself. An invalid null hypothesis or a preferred idea inside a social epistemology. A hypothesis which is defined to end deliberation without due scientific rigor, alternative study consensus or is afforded unmerited protection or assignment as the null. The surreptitiously held and promoted idea or the hypothesis protected by an Inverse Negation Fallacy. Often one which is promoted as true by default, with the knowledge in mind that falsification will be very hard or next to impossible to achieve.

Harm is happening, and we have no way of immediate measuring nor tracking it. Social resistance is enormous towards conducting any study of mechanism which will threaten it. Harm is a continuous, partly occulted function; not a discrete one as Dr. Eslick would have you (and himself) believe. Below we examine part of the robust intelligence base held by vaccine caution voices, which outlines the social manifesting of this harm function.

It is not the studies by vaccine caution scientists which have swayed me the most.
Rather it is the very studies which vaccine proliferation voices throw at me, which have convinced me of the need to raise alarm.

The Six Horsemen of the Vaccine Injury Generation

Yes, the smallpox and polio vaccines were critical. Yes vaccines can eradicate certain types of disease. But there is a cost – on the order of $185 billion to US households alone, and only if you count the burden borne by the families of the 5% most severely impacted by early and frequent immune activation.26 Those who enforce vaccine policy, and knowingly and willfully ignore this cost are just as guilty as if they had caused the maladies themselves. Six defined and undeniable trends are already underway, most well represented inside the Vaccinial Generation of kids – those born after 1994. Six related, statistically verifiable and risk-indicating trends which are ignored by the holier-than-thou defenders of pharmaceutical corporate profits. Yes, while a 7 event vaccine schedule can be argued to be a necessary decision of mercy – a 54 event one cannot. It is fueled simply by profit (as we saw above).

The real cost of this profit, the six gross indicators of childhood injury are as follows:

note: these are not ‘correlations’, rather fingerprint signals, a much higher consilience in inference than simple correlation. Understanding the difference is critical inside any claim to be scientifically literate.

1.  Fingerprint Signal Rise in Autoimmune Disorders

Rheumatic, endocrinological, gastrointestinal and neurological autoimmune diseases exhibit the following global annual percentage increases per year: 7.1, 6.3, 6.2, and 3.7, respectively. While these rates of increase are rather pronounced, the rates of increase in such maladies in the West, and in particular with respect to kids in the United States, are alarmingly higher than even the global average.27 These increases parallel the surge in cancer incidence – something which is not subject to change in diagnostic protocols. This is strong inference that something which is more prevalent in practice in the US, is causing damage to our kids.

Vaccines are linked scientifically, and by legal precedent to a whole host of autoimmune disorders.28 The tip of this ice berg is only just now being studied. It has already been established that mother’s with autoimmunity disorders have a higher incidence of children on the autism disorders spectrum.29 This is the first of the six horsemen to watch for. The rapid and sudden rise in the rates of autoimmune diseases in our kids, since 1994.

2.  Fingerprint Signal Rise in Developmental Delays

A Centers for Disease Control study of children ages 3 – 17 in the United States indicated a 17% annual increase in the incidence of developmental delays in our kids.30 If you examine the details of the study, the trends run counter to the idea that changes in diagnostic protocols are to blame. The increases are focusing on groups by income class and genetics and gender – not DSM IV protocol rollout patterns. The idea that these increases are attributable to changes in diagnostic protocols is an Einfach mechanism. It just sounds good to a layman. It is pseudo-theory, not even a hypothesis in scientific merit. Simply enforced as an answer on the part of those bearing agency. It is one thing to be credulous and investigate something which is possible, and another level of malice altogether to doggedly deny a calamitous risk, based upon no research and no evidence. The two cases of ignorance are not morally comparative. The latter not constituting skepticism nor science at all.

Physical (PT) and occupational (OT) therapy prescriptions have risen dramatically over the last decade and a half in particular.31 The rise in the employment of PT and OT, particularly in boys in the US, contrasts with the rates of the same presciptives in countries which vaccinate less than do we. This is the second horseman of this apocalypse in national security.

3.  Rise in Incidence of Dyskinetics/Ataxia

While rates of dyskentics attributable to cerebral palsy types of injury curiously doubled from the 1970’s to the 1990’s,32 the rates of non-physical birth trauma/hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy dyskinetics/ataxia overall have risen, especially in the United States. Associated physical changes, such as is the case with scoliosis, have seen a dramatic increase in the last two decades inside the United States.33

My recent (anecdote) sample at a public basketball game, resulted in an estimated 26% of the boys participating in the league, exhibiting some variation of dyskinetic/ataxia malady above and beyond normal youthful clumsiness.34 Habitually contracted extremities and unconscious repetitive motions, as well as the associated physical malformations are all on the rise. Research into this malady category is growing at a fast pace, yet remains in its infancy.35 These symptoms (mild forms thereof) are indicative of cerebral injury/encephalopathy of an origin which is not birth physical trauma nor hypoxia in nature. The injury is stemming from something recent and pronounced in change. Something introduced around 1995. This is the third horseman.

4.  Coincident Falling Trend in Both Standardized Testing and IQ Scores Beginning in 1986

SAT scores are falling, and began this current accelerated downward trend in 2002.36

IQ scores are falling, and began this current downward trend in 1986 after decades of increases.37

The fall in IQ scores in the West is perhaps the most under-reported story of our era. For most of the twentieth century, IQ rose by around three points per decade globally, probably because of better nutrition. [This is called The Flynn Effect].  But that trend has recently gone into reverse in developed countries. [The Flynn Effect has reversed dramatically, starting in 1986, the year Reagan signed the The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA – 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34)]

You hadn’t heard? I’m not surprised. Journalists and politicians won’t go near the subject and you can see why.

But a new study from Norway, which examines IQ scores from 730,000 men (standardized tests are part of military service there) disproves all these ideas, because it shows IQ dropping within the same families. Men born in 1991 score, on average, five points lower than men born in 1975. There must, in other words, be an environmental explanation [- recent in scope and pronounced in magnitude].

~ Dan Hannan, Washington Examiner: Opinion 22 Oct 201838

This is the fourth horseman, and is very stark and well documented.

5.  Shrinking Cranial and Hat/Headgear Sizes

Countering a 150 year trend in head size growth,39 a United Kingdom study in 2015 confirmed the trend wherein the average head circumference of children in the UK was on the decline.40 While the study cites that data regarding neuro-cognitive delays and head circumference is scarce, it does indicate concern that declines persist independent of any known associated microcephaly cause.

Infants with developmental deficits demonstrate delayed acceleration of head circumference velocity, compared with typical infants in the first 2 months. Infants with motor delay manifest decreased velocity, compared with infants presenting other developmental deficits.

~ Tal, Cohen, et al.; Decreased head circumference velocity as related to developmental deficit in infancy; Pediatric Neurology41

More data on this is needed, but eventually merchandising systems for retailers who sell hats should begin to show a decline in average youth head circumference since 1995. Watch for this horseman to continue to develop over the next two decades.

6.  Rise in Youth Anxiety Depression and Suicide

The odds of adolescents suffering from clinical depression grew by 37 percent between 2005 and 2014, according to a study by Ramin Mojtabai, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.42

The suicide rate for white children and teens between 10 and 17 was up 70% between 2006 and 2016, based upon the latest data analysis available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.43. For the second decade in a row, the number of children and teenagers taken to the emergency room for suicide attempts or behavior has almost doubled, and the median age is just 13 years old.

“The numbers [child and teenage suicide] are very alarming. We are seeing an acceleration of this issue, and I worry that we have not yet seen the peak.” ~ Brett Burstein, pediatric emergency room physician from McGill University.44

In a 2014 report in The Lancet Neurology, neurologists Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan cite that a “silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity” is disabling children around the world and contributing to the meteoric rise of ADHD, ASD, and other behavioral disorders.45 From that study is drawn the following quote:

Disorders of neurobehavioural development affect 10–15% of all births and prevalence rates of autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder seem to be increasing worldwide. Subclinical decrements in brain function are even more common than these neurobehavioural developmental disorders.

In addition, a study by Kraft and Aschner, et. al. identifies the concept of ‘silent neurotoxicity’; in as “high as 29% of the kids surveyed”, a malady defined as one which only exposes itself clinically in our kids, well after their childhood years (A’ and B’ below).46 Finally, if the following results from a study by Mostafa GA, et al. in the European Journal of Paediatric Neurology do not concern you, then you are scientifically brain dead.47

Autistic children had significantly higher percent positivity of serum antineuronal antibodies (62.5%) than healthy controls (5%), P<0.001. The frequency of the positivity of serum antineuronal antibodies was significantly higher in children with severe autism (87.5%) than children with mild to moderate autism (25%), P<0.001. Similarly, the frequency of the positivity of these antibodies was significantly higher in female children with autism (90%) than male autistic children (53.3%), P=0.001.

Accordingly, I have updated my Poisson Arrival Distribution chart below. In my best sample estimates working with kids as a highly trained observer, the kids impacted by these subclinical and more severe decrements in brain function comprise as much as 26% – 30% of all births. This is why this issue is a matter of national security:

This is the final horseman and really, the final straw for parents. The only missing element was that – they need to be informed as to what is happening, in order to be able to spot it – and take legislative action. We are tired of being lazily called ‘anti-vaxx’ by people who neither understand any of the above, nor care to know the actual answers. They had them figured out from day one.

(note: as I read this a full week after its posting, the 24 year old, mildly Asperger’s kid four doors down the street committed suicide over the holidays. He could not get the grades to make it into college and was not thriving well in his no-benefits, part time labor and retail jobs. He checked out. His father, brilliant leader of an integrated circuit development firm and mother, highly regarded attorney, are both devastated – wondering what went wrong. If this continues to replicate, our best and our brightest minds will be encephalitic-compromised, and our nation will stand on the precipice of collapse – from chronic injury to our most valuable resource. This could not have happened faster if it had been planned this way. All the kids on our street have suffered chronic and unreasonable levels of autoimmune, endocrine and neurological disorders.48

None of this results from a fucking change in diagnostic methods. Examine the evidence lazy skeptic, as it speaks clearly on this.

And one final suggestion. Keep count of the number of times the word ‘anecdote’ pops into your head per hoc incidents just like this over the coming decade. If your seared excuse for a conscience lets it get past 10,000 – just maybe someday, the irony of this play may compel you to call it ‘data’. But be sure, if you stand intransigently in the doorway on this and ignore CDC officers becoming 8-digit multimillionaires commensurate with the decline in the wellbeing of our youth – and don’t give a shit – you are going to be trampled by angry and powerful, and yes, very scientifically literate and brilliant parents. Mark my words.)

Well, the day of the pretend science enthusiast is coming to a close. Having your kid harmed serves to hone your skills at detecting pseudoscience fairly sharply. A new form of smart, energized and highly science-informed skeptic is arriving on the horizon. One much less tolerant of willful bullshit and incompetence. Parents who will be seeking prison time from the pseudo-scientists and fake skeptics who caused, sustained and obfuscated this enormous holocaust in young persons, not simply excoriation in the media.

To ignore this data above is not ignorance, rather it is malevolence. Skeptics love to speak about ‘The Four Horsemen’ – in their obsession over disproving their favorite hated religion. Yawn. Well here are six horsemen which should send one’s investigative instincts into overdrive. Curiously, self proclaimed skeptics never even look at this data. Very curious.

     How to MLA cite this article:

The Ethical Skeptic, “Six Vaccinial Generation Trends Fueled by Concealed Profits”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 26 Dec 2018; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-9bq

 

December 26, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Social Disdain | | 13 Comments

The Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Science

The earmarks of bad science are surreptitious in fabric, not easily discerned by media and the public at large. Sadly, as well they are not often easily discerned by scientists themselves. This is why we have ethical skepticism. It’s purpose is not simply to examine ‘extraordinary claims’, but also to examine those claims which masquerade, hidden in plain sight, as if constituting ordinary boring old ‘settled science’.

When you do not want the answer to be known, or you desire a specific answer because of social pressure surrounding an issue, or you are tired of irrational hordes babbling some nonsense about your product ‘harming their family members’ *boo-hoo 😢. Maybe you want to tout the life extending benefits of drinking alcohol, or overinflate death rates so that you can blame it on people you hate – or maybe you are just plain ol’ weary of the requisite attributes of real science. Wherever your Procrustean aspiration may reside, this is the set of guidebook best practices for you and your science organization. Trendy and proven techniques which will allow your organization to get science back on your side, at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time. 👍

Crank up your science communicators and notify them to be at the ready, to plagiarize a whole new set of journalistic propaganda, ‘cuz here comes The Lyin’tific Method!

The Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Science

When you have become indignant and up to your rational limit over privileged anti-science believers questioning your virtuous authority and endangering your industry profits (pseudo-necessity), well then it is high time to undertake the following procedure.

1. Select for Intimidation. Appoint an employee who is under financial or career duress, to create a company formed solely to conduct this study under an appearance of impartiality, to then go back and live again comfortably in their career or retirement. Hand them the problem definition, approach, study methodology and scope. Use lots of Bradley Effect vulnerable interns (as data scientists) and persons trying to gain career exposure and impress. Visibly assail any dissent as being ‘anti-science’, the study lead will quickly grasp the implicit study goal – they will execute all this without question. Demonstrably censure or publicly berate a scientist who dissented on a previous study – allow the entire organization/world to see this. Make him become the hate-symbol for your a priori cause.

2. Ask a Question First. Start by asking a ‘one-and-done’, noncritical path & poorly framed, half-assed, sciencey-sounding question, representative of a very minor portion of the risk domain in question and bearing the most likely chance of obtaining a desired result – without any prior basis of observation, necessity, intelligence from stakeholders nor background research. Stress that the scientific method begins with ‘asking a question’. Avoid peer or public input before and after approval of the study design. Never allow stakeholders at risk to help select nor frame the core problem definition, nor the data pulled, nor the methodology/architecture of study.

3. Amass the Right Data. Never seek peer input at the beginning of the scientific process (especially on what data to assemble), only the end. Gather a precipitously large amount of ‘reliable’ data, under a Streetlight Effect, which is highly removed from the data’s origin and stripped of any probative context – such as an administrative bureaucracy database. Screen data from sources which introduce ‘unreliable’ inputs (such as may contain eyewitness, probative, falsifying, disadvantageous anecdotal or stakeholder influenced data) in terms of the core question being asked. Gather more data to dilute a threatening signal, less data to enhance a desired one. Number of records pulled is more important than any particular discriminating attribute entailed in the data. The data volume pulled should be perceptibly massive to laymen and the media. Ensure that the reliable source from which you draw data, bears a risk that threatening observations will accidentally not be collected, through reporting, bureaucracy, process or catalog errors. Treat these absences of data as constituting negative observations.

4. Compartmentalize. Address your data analysts and interns as ‘data scientists’ and your scientists who do not understand data analysis at all, as the ‘study leads’. Ensure that those who do not understand the critical nature of the question being asked (the data scientists) are the only ones who can feed study results to people who exclusively do not grasp how to derive those results in the first place (the study leads). Establish a lexicon of buzzwords which allow those who do not fully understand what is going on (pretty much everyone), to survive in the organization. This is laundering information by means of the dichotomy of compartmented intelligence, and it is critical to everyone being deceived. There should not exist at its end, a single party who understands everything which transpired inside the study. This way your study architecture cannot be betrayed by insiders (especially helpful for step 8).

5. Go Meta-Study Early. Never, ever, ever employ study which is deductive in nature, rather employ study which is only mildly and inductively suggestive (so as to avoid future accusations of fraud or liability) – and of such a nature that it cannot be challenged by any form of direct testing mechanism. Meticulously avoid systematic review, randomized controlled trial, cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study, case reports and series, or reports from any stakeholders at risk. Go meta-study early, and use its reputation as the highest form of study, to declare consensus; especially if the body of industry study from which you draw is immature and as early in the maturation of that research as is possible.  Imply idempotency in process of assimilation, but let the data scientists interpret other study results as they (we) wish. Allow them freedom in construction of Oversampling adjustment factors. Hide methodology under which your data scientists derived conclusions from tons of combined statistics derived from disparate studies examining different issues, whose authors were not even contacted in order to determine if their study would apply to your statistical database or not.

6. Shift the Playing Field. Conduct a single statistical study which is ostensibly testing all related conjectures and risks in one felled swoop, in a different country or practice domain from that of the stakeholders asking the irritating question to begin with; moreover, with the wrong age group or a less risky subset thereof, cherry sorted for reliability not probative value, or which is inclusion and exclusion biased to obfuscate or enhance an effect. Bias the questions asked so as to convert negatives into unknowns or vice versa if a negative outcome is desired. If the data shows a disliked signal in aggregate, then split it up until that disappears – conversely if it shows a signal in component sets, combine the data into one large Yule-Simpson effect. Ensure there exists more confidence in the accuracy of the percentage significance in measure (p-value), than of the accuracy/salience of the contained measures themselves.

7. Trashcan Failures to Confirm. Query the data 50 different ways and shades of grey, selecting for the method which tends to produce results which favor your a priori position. Instruct the ‘data scientists’ to throw out all the other data research avenues you took (they don’t care), especially if it could aid in follow-on study which could refute your results. Despite being able to examine the data 1,000 different ways, only examine it in this one way henceforth. Peer review the hell out of any studies which do not produce a desired result. Explain any opposing ideas or studies as being simply a matter of doctors not being trained to recognize things the way your expert data scientists did. If as a result of too much inherent bias in these methods, the data yields an inversion effect – point out the virtuous component implied (our technology not only does not cause the malady in question, but we found in this study that it cures it~!).

8. Prohibit Replication and Follow Up. Craft a study which is very difficult to or cannot be replicated, does not offer any next steps nor serves to open follow-on questions (all legitimate study generates follow-on questions, yours should not), and most importantly, implies that the science is now therefore ‘settled’. Release the ‘data scientists’ back to their native career domains so that they cannot be easily questioned in the future.  Intimidate organizations from continuing your work in any form, or from using the data you have assembled. Never find anything novel (other than a slight surprise over how unexpectedly good you found your product to be), as this might imply that you did not know the answers all along. Never base consensus upon deduction of alternatives, rather upon how many science communicators you can have back your message publicly. Make your data proprietary. View science details as a an activity of relative privation, not any business of the public.

9. Extrapolate and Parrot/Conceal the Analysis. Publish wildly exaggerated & comprehensive claims to falsification of an entire array of ideas and precautionary diligence, extrapolated from your single questionable and inductive statistical method (panduction). Publish the study bearing a title which screams “High risk technology does not cause (a whole spectrum of maladies) whatsoever” – do not capitalize the title as that will appear more journaly and sciencey and edgy and rebellious and reserved and professorial. Then repeat exactly this extraordinarily broad-scope and highly scientific syllogism twice in the study abstract, first in baseless declarative form and finally in shocked revelatory and conclusive form, as if there was some doubt about the outcome of the effort (ahem…). Never mind that simply repeating the title of the study twice, as constituting the entire abstract is piss poor protocol – no one will care. Denialists of such strong statements of science will find it very difficult to gain any voice thereafter. Task science journalists to craft 39 ‘research articles’ derived from your one-and-done study; deem that now 40 studies. Place the 40 ‘studies’, both pdf and charts (but not any data), behind a registration approval and $40-per-study paywall. Do this over and over until you have achieved a number of studies and research articles which might fancifully be round-able up to ‘1,000’ (say 450 or so ~ see reason below). Declare Consensus.

10. Enlist Aid of SSkeptics and Science Communicators. Enlist the services of a public promotion for-hire gang, to push-infiltrate your study into society and media, to virtue signal about your agenda and attack those (especially the careers of wayward scientists) who dissent.  Have members make final declarative claims in one liner form “A thousand studies show that high risk technology does not cause anything!” ~ a claim which they could only make if someone had actually paid the $40,000 necessary in actually accessing the ‘thousand studies’. That way the general public cannot possibly be educated in any sufficient fashion necessary to refute the blanket apothegm. Have them demand final proof as the only standard for dissent. This is important: make sure the gang is disconnected from your organization (no liability imparted from these exaggerated claims nor any inchoate suggested dark activities *wink wink), and moreover, who are motivated by some social virtue cause such that they are stupid enough that you do not actually have to pay them.

The organizations who manage to pull this feat off, have simultaneously claimed completed science in a single half-assed study, contended consensus, energized their sycophancy and exonerated themselves from future liability – all in one study. To the media, this might look like science. But to a life-long researcher, it is simply a big masquerade. It is pseudo-science in the least; and at its worst constitutes criminal felony and assault against humanity. It is malice and oppression, in legal terms (see Dewayne Johnson vs Monsanto Company)

The discerning ethical skeptic bears this in mind and uses this understanding to discern the sincere from the poser, and real groundbreaking study from commonplace surreptitiously bad science.

epoché vanguards gnosis

——————————————————————————————

How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Science” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 3 Sep 2018; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-8f1

September 3, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates, Social Disdain | , | Leave a comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: