The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

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.

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 P&L 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.

Obfuscation of the 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…’ study 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 ‘event’ in the hours after the DTaP vaccination. The event involved six excruciating weeks of nightly fever and pain. My son never again looked us in the eye after almost that very hour of the ‘adverse event’. His function changed from one of bright eyed, expressive and engaging – to one of 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 hints of a problem came in K-4 kindergarten. The diagnosis in a medical plan did not come 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 essentially claims that my son’s type of injury does not even exist. My son’s case was one of severe impact. What the fuck happens in the case of milder impacts? And how many cases of milder impact are there? The simple fact is Dr. Eslick, you 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, 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-study was not a meta-study,24 nor was it even that good as a 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. And Finally,

6.  You have not examined the statistics below and truly are not engaged in your profession, nor fully versed in the claims you publish as ‘science’. 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.

Yes, this is the unethical system you support – but you, and your cohort of apparatchiks 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.25 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.26 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.27 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.28 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.29 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.30 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,31 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.32

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.33 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.34 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 2002.35

IQ scores are falling, and began this current downward trend in 1986 after decades of increases.36

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 201837

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,38 a United Kingdom study in 2015 confirmed the trend wherein the average head circumference of children in the UK was on the decline.39 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 Neurology40

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.41

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.42

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.43

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 pseudo scientists who caused this enormous harm, 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

When Skepticism is a Symptom of Cognitive Impairment

While fake skeptics plead that their habits stem indeed from established ‘methods of science’, perhaps their form of methodical cynicism does not arise from rationality at all. To the contrary, such intransigence may in reality be a symptom of underlying physiologically based cognitive impairment. The brain protects itself through skepticism, because it does not possess the resource nor oxygen permeation capacity, necessary to handle the demand placed upon it by novel or challenging constructs.
An impairment which expresses in the form of angry dissonance, much like hypoxic or math anxiety, in the mind of those who no longer possess the bandwidth, cerebral functional integrity and depth requisite in the wielding of great ideas.

I bought my mother a replacement for her old flip phone this last year. She resisted me for months on this, declaring that she “did not need a new phone”. So finally, when her old flip phone crapped out, I convinced her to let me add her to my family mobile plan, and get her a new LG smart phone. I placed it in ‘simple mode’ – a brilliant option on LG phones which positions just the most important six icons on the main screen when the unit is powered up.  It took me two weeks just to teach her how to push the button on the screen which answers incoming calls.  Then another month on how to identify the top and the bottom of the phone (she kept answering it with the speaker down by her mouth).  Finally, when I thought it to be the right time, I suggested that she press the button for ‘messages’ – when it had a “1” beside it. I told her that it might just contain a note, just like an email but much easier, with pictures of the kids or me; or a note saying hello, I love you, or some good news. Good things. Easy to open and view. That was too much for my mom. I had crossed the line.

Even to this very day she has abjectly refused to even attempt to push the text message button and read what is inside. My urging only serves to generate an odd form of anxiety inside her. A fear of the new and overwhelming. Now this was not the way my mother was when younger. She was an early adopter in her younger years, researching health way before it was popular, doing yoga when no one had even heard the word ‘yoga’, and trying brand new technologies as soon as they came out. She could not wait to get the first Polaroid cameras, touting the quickness to the photo, and avoiding that horrid 10 minute drive to the drug store to drop off and pick up film and photos.

Now mind you, she can see the phone just fine, as her vision is still great. She can observe all the screen objects and easily work all the buttons. Nonetheless these feature challenges I have observed to impart an anxiety inside her; anxiety shared in common with her reaction to other novel technology, new ideas, creativity and situational developments. She clings obsessively to the familiar, the explained, the old. My mother is not alone in this proclivity by any means.

In similar fashion, each of my brilliant friends from high school and undergraduate school have slowly begun to succumb to this ‘lack of curiosity and intolerance of innovation’ – syndrome. I call it a syndrome because it appears to come on with age, increase in severity with age, and is irreversible once past inception. The victim does not seem to be able to ‘change one’s mind’ about this form of cynical intolerance. One becomes solely dependent upon the school-styled skills of memorization, procedure, training and chains of familiarity. Paradigm shattering ideas, which my scientist and engineer buddies used to love to ponder for weeks on end, now only serve to make them anxious. They avoid the topics now, and say little to nothing about them any more.

They call it ‘critical thinking’ – but I rarely witness anything of the sort inside its execution. It should be instead entitled ‘conformance protocols’ – a type of thinking welfare for those of impoverished cognition.

Last month when the Tic-Tac UFO incident study set reared its disdained head again, I sent a note seeking some feature input, to my buddy in Forward Looking Infrared Technology Development at Raytheon. Twenty years ago, we would have stayed up for hours discussing the possibility that some of our anomalous observations were indeed something of Earth-shattering import. Now, he not only won’t speak about such things, but he inevitably resorts to the mindless meme-styled one-liner taunts – “It’s space aliens!!” I can no longer get anything of depth or quality out of him, nothing more than a bot would tender in response. He is up on the latest happenings with former Pantera members, or how the Dodgers are faring – but that is about it. He is a hollow cubicle-bound shell of his former self. This is a significant problem which mirrors itself in the minds of many of my ‘skeptic’ acquaintances as well. They get anxiety over such subjects, and begin to progressively avoid them, reactively shutting down as they age. This process has nothing to do with wisdom – and everything to do with lacking a young dynamic mind and sufficient cognitive capacity.

“A growing body of research reveals that the prevalence of late-life anxiety coexisting with cognitive impairment is more common than may have been suspected. And it appears that a symbiotic relationship exists between the two.”

~Stanford University School of Medicine researchers Sherry Beaudreau, Ph.D., and Ruth O’Hara, Ph.D. in their study in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry1

My friend thinks he is being funny. But he forgets that he has used the same one-liner over and over for years in the same circumstance. Perceiving each time that he has contributed something innovative and comically original. But to me, I observe the collapse of his intellectual integrity – a mind no longer possessing the bandwidth to examine paradigms and novel information – rather only now able to follow the Laplace/Lagrange scripts which we were taught in Calculus VI or the sensor calibration protocols on certain satellite systems.  He no longer creates, no longer envisions, no longer challenges anything familiar – only and exclusively denying the novel or intimidating idea. His career – his life – his youthful mind, have all stalled. And perhaps frustration over this reality may impart more to his cynicism than the impairment itself; nonetheless, I observe a hollow form of what used to be my friend. Nigh unto watching a loved one sink into dementia. He thinks it is because he is ‘smarter and more scientific’ now. I see it as a form of creeping cognitive impairment – no different than the case of my mother and her new smart phone.

High Anxiety – A Sign that One’s Intellectual Capacity has been Outstripped

All this reminded me of my flight training in the Navy. After passing the 50 meter underwater swim, the Dilbert Dunker and the Ejection Seat Simulator (or ‘rocket chair’ as it is affectionately known), all with flying colors – I thought that the hypobaric altitude chamber would be a cinch to accomplish. In the altitude chamber, atmosphere is gradually removed by means of a vacuum, to simulate the conditions of higher altitude so that the pilot can recognize by this prior experience, the signs of hypoxia. Hypoxia is a deficiency in the amount of oxygen reaching the brain tissues. Please note that, even though technically the oxygen-deficient blood of the cognitively impaired mind of an adult at sea level would be known as hypoxemia, the condition in the brain tissue under circumstances of hypoxemia is nevertheless called hypoxia. So we use the term endogenous hypoxia here to describe any condition of shortage in oxygen to the brain tissue under normal conditions, necessary for certain complex cognitive integral functions. Endogenous hypoxia is not something which at low levels, can necessarily be detected by its sufferer.

But what are the symptoms of low scale endogenous hypoxia? The same as low magnitude exogenous hypoxia (altitude sickness), which are2

  • confusion/disorientation
  • anxiety
  • behavioral change (usually anger)
  • ataxia

It is these first three symptoms, confusion/disorientation, anxiety and anger which interest me the most. When I was in the altitude chamber, I and two other candidates were selected to stay in the chamber the longest, and allow the other pilot candidates to observe how hypoxia works. My buddy Alex had been assigned to sort a deck of playing cards into a box with four slots cut into and labeled by card suit.  At 26,000 feet he was failing miserably. Laughing at him while I observed his difficulties, I noticed that I was struggling to perform some rather simple math equations which I had been assigned to solve. I recognized the abstract symbols on the paper, but could not attach any meaning to them, nor to the associated procedural library I had stored in my brain. It was at that moment that I began to realize that the abstract symbols were terrifying me. Math anxiety. I could not translate the abstract symbolic set before me, into a structured and procedural way to resolve them in my mind. It was not simply confusion – I was threatened by symbols I recognized but could not resolve. It was a procedural anxiety over an abstract challenge – pure and simple. The chamber director spoke over the loudspeaker and asked “Midshipman TES, how are you doing over there?”. I just stared at him with a look of bewilderment and displeasure on my face. It was a topic of great fun over beers later that evening. “TES, you looked like you were going to kill the instructor there man.” Something the instructor told me he had seen many times before.

The solution for the pilot facing hypoxia? Procedure and training. In order to function under a risk of hypoxia – the competent pilot trains himself or herself as to how to carry out basic functions to regain oxygen and keep the aircraft in flight all the way to touchdown or tailhook. Becoming procedurally minded is a must in such a situation. Again in Naval Intelligence, I once was tasked to fly on short notice from Washington D.C. to Sigonella, Sicily – without my uniforms. I was able to quickly purchase an officer’s cap in the Naval Academy Midshipman Store – whereupon I could obtain the rest of the ensemble at a later time during my tasking. Accordingly, I wrote my name on the courtesy card inside the officer’s cap while tucked away on top of crates inside the cargo compartment of a C-130. Years later I realized, that I had misspelled my own name – while riding there at 36,000 feet of altitude. The cargo compartment had been slightly depressurized for much of the trip. For those suffering cognitive impairment, procedure is everything. Even down to how to spell one’s own name. Procedure is your life blood. As long as you follow procedure, you can be somewhat cognitively impaired, and still be a reasonable B student or apothegm-spouting ‘skeptic’.

Note: which is also why I do not hire B students, the following dangers exist inside the body of B students:

  1. They are A students who were lazy, or
  2. They are C students who cheated or had unfair access to ‘word’, or
  3. They are mildly cognitive-impaired yet know how to follow a procedure or a lesson plan.

Few of these types do I want in my organizations.

A problem exists however, when the majority of society is functioning under such a burden. This provides a fertile breeding ground for social skeptics.

The irony is that today, this same disorientation anxiety exists in the minds of skeptics, when challenged with abstract constructs which they cannot resolve into the easy, nonthreatening and procedural. The only difference resides in the fact that in everyday life, this ‘hypoxia’ victim must adorn a costume in the form of method and power-identity, in order to socially conceal their disorientation and anxiety. An anxiety which prompts them into attacking those they see as the messengers of the abstract: ‘woo’ and ‘pseudoscience’. They must hold the social power at all times, so as not to be found out.

To me, this is why social skeptics seem to react with such negative vehemence towards issues which should otherwise bear little social detriment and paucity of true impact on their lives. They compensate for their fear with high school social tactics – becoming virtue signaling, chest pounding science-bullies in the process.

Sometimes, skepticism itself is a sickness. The brain protects itself through skepticism, because it does not posses the resources nor oxygen permeation capacity, necessary to handle the demand placed upon it by a novel idea. Once I observe a person to head down this style of fake (dissonance-anxiety) skepticism, they never come back. They cannot heal themselves of this physiological malady.

Is Procedural-Mindedness a Symptom of Cognitive Impairment?

The creative mind, functions in a way that is wholly different from the task oriented mind. A recent study published in Nature Scientific Reports, entitled Brain networks for visual creativity: a functional connectivity study of planning a visual artwork, by Nicola De Pisapia, Francesca Bacci, Danielle Parrott and David Melcher elicited this very principle.3 In the study, the authors tested the idea that creativity (planning an artwork) would influence the functional connectivity between regions involved in the brain, which are also implicated in divergent thinking and generating novel ideas. The key observation which arose from the study was that creative generative processes, require a complex use of multiple regions, and networks, of the brain simultaneously – a demand in resources far outstripping the normal daily or procedural task. They measured functional connectivity by means of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) during three different conditions: rest, visual imagery of the alphabet and planning an artwork to be executed immediately after the scanning session. Therein they found a stronger connectivity between areas of default activity and executive decision capacity during the creative task, and this difference was enhanced as well in professional artists. These findings suggest that creativity involves an expert balance of two brain networks typically viewed as being in opposition. This demanded, according to the study, several orders of magnitude more in cognitive processing ability than did procedural tasks.

Creativity is roughly definable as the process of generating novel and worthwhile ideas or objects and is thought to involve several types of cognitive abilities. One widespread idea is that creativity must involve both novelty (new ideas or objects are the outcome) and usefulness (the new idea/object must be worthwhile). There is widespread consensus that creativity is a fundamental and valuable part of human cognition.4

Indeed, the ability to register an abstract symbology, and resolve it into a procedural understanding takes just this sort of cognitive capability and creativity on a person’s part. To be able to grasp, receive and digest a creative work takes every bit the cognitive capacity which is required to create it. Skeptics often lack this ability and project their dissonance-anxiety towards those who do have this talent.

It is my conjecture that the inability of skeptics to register or create per hoc aditum asymmetrical or complex scenarios in their mind, produces a kind of dissonance-based anxiety and anger – which they then express towards the messengers of such threatening symbologies. They lack the physiological cognitive resources (possibly oxygen permeation) which are required to calmly digest and contemplate such challenges to their paradigms and comfort zones.

If you doubt this, simply examine the comments section of any post, article or study regarding the 768 forbidden subjects identified in The Skeptic’s Dictionary. You will observe endless angry diatribes on the part of those who lack cognitive depth – those who have been trained in the use of the weapons necessary in concealing their pathology. Heavy use of one liners, Bridgman reduction and personal attacks. They are angry and employ a pretense of science as their billy club – of this fact, society has little doubt. (Note: I do not get such anxiety. I embrace change and challenging new abstract ideas with passion – only rejecting them when the evidence becomes overwhelming. On any typical issue I may hold 7 different alternative explanations and supportive evidence sets in my mind, without anxiety nor dissonance at all. I also have been certified by my cardiologist to be ‘arterial plaque free’ – because of a certain method I used to eliminate calcium phosphate-LDL cholesterol plaque from my heart and brain blood vessels. I noticed a significant boost in my cognitive capabilities after the associated therapy.)

I have seen this often in business meetings, where the subject matter, or the array of complex challenges outstrip the ability of some of the members present to process and register what is being contended or discussed. Often these people will get angry and lash out at the person they perceive to be forcing their dissonance. They become unethical in their anger. They become caricatures of science and skepticism, frothing inappropriately over people and events serving to introduce the abstract which exceeded their resource capacity, rather than the ideas over which they should normally be intellectual masters.

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

~F. Scott Fitzgerald

The ethical skeptic must always have the mental capacity to tolerate the introduction of new ideas, listen to the eyewitnesses without being threatened in the process. It is a sign of one’s intellectual reserve – the ability to exhibit the grace, integrity and acumen requisite in the wielding of great ideas.

epoché vanguards gnosis

——————————————————————————————

How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “When Skepticism is a Symptom of Cognitive Impairment” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 5 Jul 2018; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-7SS

July 5, 2018 Posted by | Social Disdain | , , | 7 Comments

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: