The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Reduction: A Bias for Understanding

A bias for understanding is demonstrated no better than by an ethical researcher’s ability to say ‘I do not know.’ Beware of anyone who makes a claim to critical thinking, yet habitually shortcuts reducing the subject being assessed into its cause and risk constituents. Such persons are nothing but salesmen.

It is fully acceptable, nay it is scientific to say, ‘I don’t know.’ Inside ethical skepticism, one should first assume the disciplined epoché of ‘I don’t know’, until an examination of the process of reduction and critical path incremental risk progression is undertaken. This reveals one’s preference for understanding in lieu of fiat knowledge. In similar ethic, reduction is the process of disassembling a macroscopic object into its cause, effect and risk constituents. Reduction is essential to the establishment of mechanism, and mechanism is essential to the establishment of hypothesis. Reduction is a critical part of the first three steps of the scientific method: Observation, Intelligence and Necessity.

Is a rock nothing more than the assembly of quantum states, valences, electrons and bosons comprised by its lattice structure? Is a legal case nothing more than finding a guilty appearing or unpopular party upon which to blame a tort? Is a paradox really a paradox, or are there more surreptitious contributors at play? A habit of reduction in approaching such mysteries reveals a bias for understanding on the part of the sincere researcher. Put another way, by Martyn Shuttleworth and Explorable:1

“Scientific reductionism is the idea of reducing complex interactions and entities to the sum of their constituent parts, in order to make them easier to study.”

Reduction is the path taken by the ethical skeptic who eschews abductive and panductive inference (the habit of social skeptics). Accordingly, the purpose of reduction is four-fold:

  1. Distinguish critical factors, risks & effects from merely influencing or irrelevant ones
  2. Identify the critical path of inquiry and possible inductive or deductive syllogism
  3. Detect the presence and eliminate the contribution of agency
  4. Establish robust study design/Mitigate testing or analytical noise.

There is a philosophy of science which cites that, determining the answer to an asymmetric dilemma is relatively straightforward, once one has successfully identified all the elemental contributing factors and their relationships. In absence of the process of scientific reduction, one cannot faithfully pursue the powerful forms of inference known as deduction and induction. One must instead resort to the appeal to authority of abduction, or the appeal to ignorance denials of panduction. Under this line of philosophy, the instinct to reduce a complex argument into its basic syllogistic elements, in advance of ‘assailing the facts’ (see Why Sagan is Wrong) or even hypothesis development, reveals a very ethical disposition on the part of the true skeptic: a bias for understanding.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a fan of just such thinking, elicited no better than by four of his most famous quotes, expressed through his fictional persona, Sherlock Holmes:

“It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important.” – A Case of Identity

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” – The Sign of Four

What Arthur Conan Doyle has outlined in this second quote is the process of deduction. Eliminate the entire subset of plausibility which can be falsified, and what you have left is the truth – or the domain of truth at the very least. Arthur Conan Doyle certainly appreciated the role which reduction played inside the escapades of his most notable character, Sherlock Holmes. The reason being, that reduction is necessary before one can undertake the processes which result in inductive and deductive inference. One can undertake abduction and panduction however, without any prior research or work – which is why fake skepticism prefers those methods of inference. Panduction and abduction involve a practice set against which Doyle’s famous detective character warns with utmost effulgence:

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” – A Scandal in Bohemia

“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” – The Bascombe Valley Mystery

Upon any semblance of depth in reading Arthur Conan Doyle, one would correctly infer that he possessed a bias for understanding. His pursuits involved subjects which were sure to piss off most social skeptics. Social skeptics typically fail to grasp this irony as well.2 But we will leave that topic for another time. Suffice to say, how could a person this objective and skeptical, rationally dare to venture into the ‘paranormal’? The principle behind this escapes fake skeptics to this very day. Beware of those who promulgate final answers, and then claim a defense of the ‘facts’. Science is much more than this. Therefore, the axiom of ethical skepticism proceeds as such:

One cannot conduct critical thinking nor craft a critical path of incremental risk of conjecture and testing, without first reducing asymmetry into its series of cause and risk elemental bases. Beware of anyone who makes a claim to critical thinking, yet habitually shortcuts reducing the subject being assessed. Such persons are nothing but salesmen.

This process of disassembly of an asymmetrical object into its cause and risk series elements, is called the process of reduction. A bias for understanding is demonstrated no better than by a person who exhibits the patience and discipline to reduce a complex argument, before attempting to formulate a construct, and much less pretend to foist a conclusion about it.

The Reluctant Dowser

After a sixteen year period of living in my house, I had long since misplaced the location of my sprinkler control valves buried under the grass. They are a cluster of 3 electro-servo controlled water valves which my central control unit operates to automatically turn my sprinklers on and off during the spring and summer seasons of grass growth. One of them had malfunctioned, and the section of sprinkler heads which were operated by this electro-servo control, had consequently failed to operate. I called upon a highly recommended local sprinkler repair specialist to come out and take a look. After testing the system under a couple different scenarios (also reduction itself), he confirmed “Yessir, your zone 2 valve has gone bad. Can you tell me where your sprinkler servo units are buried?” I just grimaced and shrugged in reply.

Now I have a rather large yard, where the water main arrives at a completely different entry point than the footprint of most of my grass. Poetically, the master control unit in my garage, is also nowhere near the majority of my yard and sprinkler heads. Determining the location of the set of control valves was going to be a daunting task. Most often they are located in a bundle buried under the ground, but because of my yard configuration and size, this could not be assumed. The sprinkler tech offered to locate the valves for a fee of $75. He directed his son who was working with him, to run to the truck and get a particular machine which is used to accomplish just such a task (eg. Amazon: Armada Pro300 Sprinkler Valve Locator). The reason being offered, that he would have to scan the entire set of possible locations for the valves, and eliminate false positives which will inevitably be generated by underground wires/metal as well. This process would take some time. Therefore the fee.

Now, my grandfather had been a dowser. The process of finding well locations, septic tanks and other formations of underground water, was a service he had regularly provided to the family and neighbors back in the day. Dowsing was something I had been used to, as a robust and reliable form of underground water detection. It was not until I got so smart that I was able to enter graduate school, that I was instructed that dowsing was a form of ‘magical thinking’. But since I am a skeptic of imperious wisdom, and a reductionist at heart, I asked the sprinkler tech with a contemplative push of the bottom lip “Is there a chance perhaps that you might possess say, another more traditional way of finding water under the ground?” Cocking my head slightly while I spoke the word ‘traditional’. The sprinkler tech smiled and said “I might. But I typically don’t do that in neighborhoods like this, ’cause people start yelling at me and calling me names and then stop using my service. As long as no one’s gonna get bent out of shape over it, I can try and dowse this thing if you want.”

I wanted. He dowsed the yard for free. He walked perpendicularly from the property line with his two bent copper wires in hand, stopped mid yard, turned right, walked about 30 paces to a spot in the grass, then slammed his shovel head down right at his toes.

Shtaunk! He found the sprinkler servo-valves, in the middle of nowhere, in less than 3 minutes of work.

I tipped him and his son $30 for the entertainment, lesson and effort in tradition. I don’t know how it works, all I know is that it does work. As the sprinkler tech and his son departed, he shook my hand and said “By the way, those people who used to yell at me for proposing a dowse of their yard, I charged them $125 to use the machine.” He chuckled as he walked off.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary of course, promulgates its abductive and panductive pearls of wisdom, handed down to them by god (see ethical skepticism’s Definition of God), in order to warn against the use of the witchcraft of dowsing, as it could damn your soul to magical thinking hell. From The Skeptic’s Dictionary:3

Since dowsing is not based upon any known scientific or empirical laws or forces of nature, it should be considered a type of divination and an example of magical thinking. The dowser tries to locate objects by occult means.

Translated: ‘We don’t understand it, therefore it is evil‘.

Hmm… this seems familiar to me. I have run into this type of religious (non-reductive) thinking before, and it was not inside science. People who think like this often conceal more awesome insistence than simply the one subject at hand. They want to own your thinking, what you communicate, what you study, and your pursuits as well. Their focus is not the subject, their focus is you. Being mistaken at times, bears less calamity, than is being under their auspices, trust me.

Being correct on 95% of one’s awesome insistence that others comply, stands as poor recompense for the harm one creates through the 5% instance in which one is wrong.

Of course a typical dowser would make no such claim, that dowsing is ‘locating objects by occult means’. I find it funny that, pseudo-skeptics will accept that a machine can find the location of water valves under the ground based upon established principles of science, and simultaneously then contend that a man with a simple device can only claim to accomplish the same thing via ‘occult means’. I smell a lack of reduction (panductive inference) at play. Most dowsers, including Albert Einstein, believe the effect to originate from natural phenomena.4 I don’t know the answer to this. All I know is that it worked for my grandfather, and it worked for my lawn sprinkler maintenance guy. These are no nonsense people – far from being ‘occultists’. I would call them reductionist science practitioners. I would not call the people at The Skeptic’s Dictionary anything but pseudo-skeptics. Dowsing saved me $45. The task now, is to figure out why it appears to consistently work – not start gas can banging and chest pounding about what it is, and what it is not.

Just because I ponder the potential efficacy and epistemology of something you don’t like, does not serve to make my thinking ‘magical’.

Sherlock Holmes comments about this type of crooked thinking, exhibited on the part of the panduction-minded authors at The Skeptic’s Dictionary:

In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backwards. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practise it much. In the every-day affairs of life it is more useful to reason forwards, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically…Let me see if I can make it clearer. Most people, if you describe a train of events to them, will tell you what the result would be. They can put those events together in their minds, and argue from them that something will come to pass. There are few people, however, who, if you told them a result, would be able to evolve from their own inner consciousness what the steps were which led up to that result. This power is what I mean when I talk of reasoning backwards, or analytically. – A Study in Scarlet

Their habitual denial, the refusal to reduce certain phenomena which are robust, or which persist in our observational base, stems in essence from a lack of skill at scientific critical path logic. They do not possess the patience and disciplined method, requisite in the disassembly of the asymmetrical aspects of dowsing into its series elements of risk and conjecture. They refuse to apply any form of logical critical path, and instead choose only to adorn themselves with the lab coats and accoutrements of science, while lazily declaring the answer a priori. Identity warfare, very much the same thing as is virtue signaling.

The Critical Path Role of Reduction

Therefore, in light of Doyle’s penchant for ‘reasoning backwards’, let us define the role of reduction, and its place in the process of science, prior to the assembly of a construct or hypothesis. Reduction is the process of allowing one to see, scientifically. To unravel the factors which are salient to a result.

Reduction (Philosophy of Science)

/philosophy : science : critical path/ : the disassembly of asymmetry between logical objects such that each maybe be examined individually and in relation to their series contribution to the whole in terms of cause, effect and risk. The process of ex ante predicting or ex poste observing the macroscopic characteristics of a logical or physical object by identifying and manipulating the characteristics and interplay of its microscopic components, ostensibly at the lowest level of inspection which can be defined. Reduction must be pursued before a process which may result in a claim to induction, deduction or assessment of risk can be successfully undertaken. Reduction reveals a bias for understanding.5

Reduction is the path taken by the ethical skeptic who eschews abductive and panductive inference (the habit of social skeptics). Accordingly, the purpose of reduction is four-fold:

  1. Distinguish critical factors, risks & effects from merely influencing or irrelevant ones
  2. Identify the critical path of inquiry and possible inductive or deductive syllogism
  3. Detect the presence and eliminate the contribution of agency
  4. Establish robust study design/Mitigate testing or analytical noise.

Now there are a variety of reductionist approaches inside the sciences, and they differ by the general subject. Reduction inside cosmological sciences is not the same thing as reduction inside the biological sciences for instance. Nor does pursuing reduction guarantee resolution of a paradox or inquiry. Reduction is a tool and not necessarily a panacea – which is why you will not see me using the word ‘reductionism’. As this form of extrapolation/equivocation abuse of the term serves to cause much confusion.6 The prevailing principle I use is – reduction is a bias for understanding, which even if academic, inaugurates the researcher into the intelligence domain they will need in order to develop novel approaches and potential hypotheses. You will find that, in short order you appear to have deeper insights than even do the ‘experts’. Reduction involves testing, getting out into the field, being quiet, and the skill to observe. So, even if reduction is not prima facia effective, its exercise is beneficial nonetheless. The process I have employed in the past – in study, and in life and in labs, involves the following steps of breaking down elements of cause, effect and risk (using a test of dowsing as the example):

1.  Elemental-ize – Identify all of the hard elements comprised by the asymmetric object.

eg. formation of water, earth, test human, search grid, depth, device, metal, weather, time of day, temperature, etc.

2.  Filter – Filter elements in critical dependency from merely influencing elements.

eg. formation of water, test human, device, metal.

3.  Identify Critical Path – establish a base critical path among those critical dependency elements:

eg. human to device to metal to water formation

4.  Sensitivity Test Influencing Elements/Regression – Alter all and only the influencing elements in series, without changing the primary elements in dependency, and observe the dependency effect in each alteration. Measure and record the effect for influencing relationships (sensitivity regression analysis).

eg. change location, grid, depth, time of day, human, etc.

5.  Control Test Dependency Elements/Arrival Distributions – Repeat 4 with a control version of the dependency elements – however eliminating those influencing elements which showed no effect in step 4.

eg. the same series of tests with NO formation of water actually present and with a change of device metal

One may discern here, that by reducing the dowsing issue to its critical and influencing-only elements and proceeding accordingly, one has achieved robustness in study design and provided sound basis for the possible development of valid inference. But there is another strength offered by this approach as well; that is, the identification of agency and its surreptitious contribution.

Detecting Agency and Pretend Reduction

Now that we have examined one possible method of reduction regarding dowsing, let’s use this same topic to inspect a scenario of pretend reduction. Will actual ethical study prove a significant effect for dowsing? I do not know the answer to this. Sadly we may never know, as too much agency is wound up inside such testing (see the problem of Club Quality). A small group of tests have been completed, which indicated significant results for some dowsers and ‘no differentiation from random’ for others (Wagner, Betz, and König, 1990 Schlußbericht 01 KB8602, Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie).7 In this study, self-purported dowswers were given a hit or miss shot at locating a pipe filled with water concealed under a barn floor. To the right, you can see the results graphic from that study; results which are used by skeptics to issue final disposition on the topic of dowsing. The employment of the ‘misses’ in the graphic to the right constitutes a form of study noise pseudoscience called torfuscation (Saxon for ‘hide in the bog’). I question a study design which tests the mechanism of how accurate a first try is (hits and misses in the graphic to the right) – as such a measure would contain a boat-load of noise.

The hits and misses in the graphic to the right bear a high risk of study noise. Either of two results can be merely a consequence of accident, however the misses have a greater chance of being generated accidentally. It is not simply that this is too small a sample size. No provision for the contribution of noise, regardless of sample size, was made in the study. The misses were then used as evidence of absence. This is torfuscation. It is study fraud.

This is not how scientific testing is done. Part of the objective of a study design is to conduct tests which serve to neutralize, or in the least mitigate, observation noise. The proper way to test this paradigm is to assess whether or not, in repetitive trials, good dowsers can consistently beat efficient pattern searches (JP 3-50 Search and Rescue grids or crime scene search patterns for example) in terms of success arrival distributions on a scale of time (τ). The next step would be to take those who showed very significant results, and conduct a time/grid testing series per the example of reduction I related above. Conducting repetitive regression analyses on alteration of influencing factors, upon signal detection provides more reduction depth, than does a single level hit or miss test. Instead fake skeptics took partial results from the noise of a single level measure (hit or miss), bearing no control reference arrival distribution – a subset of reduction which tendered some convenient facts for their propaganda – and ran with a final answer. No wonder we are ignorant as a race of beings.

I found some people who are bad at dowsing (study noise), therefore dowsing is magical thinking. Who developed this study design, a college freshman? or maybe James Randi? This is not science in the least, and reeks of ‘The JREF Million Dollar Challenge‘ type of idiocy.


/philosophy : pseudoscience : study fraud : Saxon : ‘hide in the bog’/ : pseudoscience through inappropriate or shallow study design. A process, contended to be science, wherein one develops a conclusion through cataloging study observation noise as valid data. Invalid observations which can be parlayed into becoming evidence of absence or evidence of existence as one desires – by taking the appropriate hit or miss grouping as basis for inference.  A refined form of praedicate evidentia employed inside statistical studies which exploits the study noise generated through first level measurements, as the basis for a claim that something does or does not exist. See also utile absentia.

Example: If you take the SAT a day on which you woke up severely ill, and you get a low score consequently, this is not evidence of your inadmissibility to quality universities. A fake skeptic will use such a circumstance to declare you dumb, by means of the ‘facts’.

Of course, fake skeptics like to make a final declaration of ‘pseudoscience’ as quickly and as shallowly into the data as is possible. They bear a habit of never saying, ‘I do not know’ and a history of attempting to prevent such research from being done in depth, at any cost. This is not skepticism in the least, and smells of desperation – it is debunking. A form of pseudo-reduction. You will note consistency in this, as celebrity skeptics consistently undertake a lazier short-cut process of science, when applied to topics or subjects which they have been assigned to discredit. This process of pseudoscience called pseudo-reduction, otherwise known as debunking (a more detailed methodological outline of this activity can be found here: The New Debunker: Pseudo-Skeptic Sleuth), stands as one of the primary tactics of fake skepticism.

Pseudo-Reduction (Debunking)

/philosophy : pseudoscience/ : the non-critical path disassembly of a minor subset of logical objects as a pretense of examination of the whole. A process which pretends that a robust observation is already understood fully. Which consequently then ventures only far enough into the reducible material to a level sufficient to find ‘facts’ which appear to corroborate one of six a priori disposition buckets to any case of examination: Misidentification, Hoax/Being Hoaxed, Delusion, Lie, Accident, Anecdote. This process exclusively avoids any more depth than this level of attainment, and most often involves a final claim of panductive inference (falsification of an entire domain of ideas), along with a concealed preexisting bias.

Knowing what constitutes sound reduction, how it is applied and how to spot its exercise – stands as a key aspect of ethical skepticism. The ability to spot the faker and distinguish him from the one actually conducting science.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Reduction: A Bias for Understanding” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 4 Oct 2018; Web,

October 4, 2018 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , | Leave a comment

Epoché and The Handedness of Information

Epoché is the suspended discipline of the ethical skeptic, which prevents the handedness of information from impacting what he or she discerns to constitute suitable theory. It is the active inquiry of one who goes into the field and observes, crafts intelligence and frames necessity. A journey of curiosity and opposition to agency in which the ethical skeptic will disappointingly find himself alone – while the religious, both believer and cynic alike, refuse to undertake any venture of the sort.

If you are even the most casual reader of The Ethical Skeptic, you probably have observed that I begin my signature with the salutation ‘epoché vanguards gnosis‘. Epoché is the discipline wherein an ethical skeptic actively goes back to the first hand source and dispassionately and neutrally looks for themself. An ethical skeptic is never satisfied with apathetically wallowing in a mystery (this is not the same as wonder), nor celebrating its debunking as part of an effort to increase a cynical club ranking. An ethical skeptic, goes and looks, gathers intelligence, asks critical path questions, seeks novel perspectives, themself – they do not rely upon social skeptic nor true believer literature to digest and explain challenging observations for them. Aside from specious forms of Nickell Plating, it is indeed a rare sight to see a ‘skeptic’ out in the field investigating, other than to be able to say that they did, or simply on symbolic excursion to search for a priori plausible deniability in the interest of club social ranking. Aside from this I have never once seen a skeptic out with various groups I have visited, regardless of the type of extraordinary claim I seek to research.

One outcome of this disappointing reality, is the realization that most all knowledge which is held by both believer and social skeptic alike, is knowledge they have received second, third, fourth or even ninth hand from different social and agency contributors. Parties who have altered (handed) that information set through its propagation. Information transference is rarely an idempotent process. If you can find a researcher who is able to assimilate intelligence, without changing the gist of its story, hire them and keep them. This skill is rare. The arrow in the quivery of the ethical skeptic, which he or she employs to combat the role of what is known as ‘handed information’, is called epoché.


/philosophy : skepticism : deontological doubt/ : (Gr. ἐποχή, “suspension”) – an active suspension of disposition. The suspended state of judgement exercised by a disciplined and objective mind, in preparation to conduct research. A state of neutrality which eschews the exercise of religious, biased rational or critical, risky provisional and dogmatic dispositions when encountering new observations, ideas and data. In contrast with a wallow in passive neutrality or apathy, epoché is a form of active investigation based upon a discipline of impartiality. A desire to find the answer, tempered by the wisdom that answers do not come as easily as most people believe.

It is the step of first being skeptical of self, before addressing challenging or new phenomena. Underpinned by both a examination of the disciplines of true knowledge development (epignosis) and the repository of vetted and accepted knowledge (gnosis). If someone relates a challenging observation to you, you suspend disposition, and catalog it. If you toss it out based upon a fallacy, trivial flaw or terminal disinterest – then you are a cynic, not a skeptic.

The bottom line is, epoché is a discipline of ‘going back to the source, and looking for yourself’. It is a methodology which seeks to circumvent the stacked plurality of what is known as the ‘handedness of information’. And in doing so, is the vanguard to what qualifies as our body of accepted knowledge, gnosis. Therefore, in order to understand why and how epoché is important, lets examine that key principle involved, the handedness of information.

Information Handedness: Social and Agency

We are used to speaking in terms of first and second hand information, socially. We as elementary school kids are taught and typically understand what the addition of a degree of separation from the source, tends to do in terms of information integrity. This principle is akin to the Ockham’s Razor axiom cautioning about adding ‘entities’ to an argument. Adding levels of exchange or conflict of interest to an information set is much akin to adding entities to an argument – it may or may not add value, but it certainly will always serve to add more uncertainty. Certain loss, combined with uncertain gain – do not go there. This risk versus benefit parsimony gives broach to the expanded idea of information ‘handedness’ (first hand, second hand, hearsay, etc.) as it relates to the entropy of intelligence.

Agency and The Handedness of Information

/philosophy : Ockham’s Razor : entities : sources/ : any increase in the entropy of the integrity of a purported information set as it is developed, communicated or codified. Handedness often is expressed in terms of stacked layers of sourcing, any introduced source layer or modifier which bears a conflict of interest regarding the integrity of the information, and/or any non-idempotent exchange of that information – collectively as a series group, known as the ‘hands’ of influence. There are nine hands of information exchange. The first four hands are typically regarded as the least corrupted – expressing merely as a phenomenon of social handling, The last five hands of agency constitute the least reliable hand-offs of information; and are moreover, earmarked by any goal to exploit ‘handed’ information for organizational or personal gain or power.

Social Handedness (The ethical skeptic maintains epoché on this information)

1st Hand – Something you personally observe

2nd Hand – Something related to you by a reliable witness or trusted friend

3rd Hand – Something related to an interested group by a knowledgeable and involved party

4th Hand – Something commonly or controversially discussed/rumor

Agency Handedness (The ethical skeptic is not required to maintain epoché on this information)

5th Hand – A prejudicial spin, straw man, disinformation, or exaggeration which is extracted from 4th Hand information

6th Hand – A transformed, misleading, witness disparaging and cherry picked set of 1st – 5th Hand information

7th Hand – Codification, club review or false authority derived from 5th and 6th Hand information

8th Hand – Ongoing doctrine and pseudo-philosophy which is enforced upon the basis of official 7th Hand information

9th Hand – Power, monetary income, club authority or personal celebrity which is derived from 8th Hand information

Please notice that the first four hands of information exchange are a normal part of the function of a group of social humans. This is what we are taught in elementary school about the escalations and adaptations which occur during the spread of gossip. But also note, with hands following fourth hand information, a new agent is introduced. Beginning with the agent who seeks to cherry pick extract, exaggerate and straw man translate the material (aka ‘digest’), so that it may be used ultimately for gain – these constitute the hands who are purposing part (not typically all) of the information set, for power. These are your dogmatists who produce agency handedness. They seek more than truth. They seek the power, celebrity and income that their twist on corrupted information can serve. Benefits in terms of cabal, its authority, and their celebrity ranking therein.

Religious Information Handedness

Let’s first elicit this chain of increasing risk, in verity (handedness – a form of plurality under Ockham’s Razor) by examining an example of 7th Hand Information as it pertains to religion. Specifically, with the New Testament Gospel of Luke, chapter 1, verses 1 thru 4 (New International Version).

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. ~ The New Testament Gospel of Luke, 1:1-4 (NIV)

As you may derive from (you must unshackle yourself from religious defensive bias first) this heavily equivocal-worded preamble to the history documented inside the Gospel of Luke, three elements of concern arise:

1.  The recount is delivered in a defensive and obfuscating pleonastic form. Instead of delivering a message in straightforward fashion, such as, ‘I was a 5 year-long daily associate of Jesus and this is what I saw and remember’, the delivery of information is couched in code phrases which cajole the reader into inferring a second and third hand verity to it, but never actually tenders claim to such a sound basis for its origin. This is Antoneqsue rhetoric in fine form, delivered so as to impress the reader with authoritative sounding credibility – but which actually says nothing.

2.  The information sources are neither fourth nor fifth hand, as the version the author is assembling for the reader, Theophilus, is chosen from a body of versions which are exonerated and exaggerated (hyperbole collectively) as well as compliant to a bias he holds. He implies that, sifting through this disorderly body of material (containing normal human exchange hyperbole) has been no small task.

3.  Finally the author, Luke the Historian, makes it clear that this is his version of the recount which resulted from this chaotic set of material. In this matter he has had to translate some of the hyperbole he struggled with, and then sought to formalize what he found into a codice for delivery to posterity (through Theophilus). Clearly sixth and seventh hand information sets.

As an ethical skeptic, I am not required to hold suspension on this type of information, especially as it relates to a claim to truth and action (acceptance and action on my part). This information above in Luke’s preamble, is presented as absolute authority upon which I must take action. If another agent then further pushes that information upon me (apologetics) as a doctrine or accuses me of failing science/knowledge/truth in some way by not accepting it – this is Eighth Handed Agency. It just keeps getting worse.

This verse in the Bible gave me great consternation (as did the appearance of an olive leaf Noah scraped from the dove’s beak, a mere 43 days after the first mountain tops emerged from Noah’s Flood – when it takes a 7 full months for an olive pit to ‘come true’ and produce its first leaf as a viable tree sproutling – if the ‘whole world’ was flooded, then where did this leaf come from?). Consternation because I sensed prevarication and high handedness being spun inside its text. It bothered me enormously in my sincere, god-seeking youth. Why would god prevaricate, equivocate and wax pleonastic? Just say what you mean and mean what you say; otherwise people could miss the point completely, and end up in hell. A problem with which I found the Bible to be replete.

Eventually I had to conclude that men wrote this material – men alone; not through any non-human inspiration; but rather in the same state as all information as spun by men; that the material suffered from every bit the handedness, as which does all forms of disinformation and hyperbole. It was capped off finally, in later years, by the signature earmark of being exploited for gain. It was religious Ninth Handed information – the science communication of the day.

When one undertakes such a journey of integrity, this process does not stop at neutralizing only Abrahamic religious messages – those who pretend to represent god. There are others who purport to represent truth under a burden of ‘high handedness’ as well: social skeptics. Those who pretend to represent the science-god. But before we address these quasi-religions, let us examine a corollary principle inside the concept of handedness. That of the inside player or intra ludio.

intra ludio

/philosophy : rhetoric : agency : telltales/ : the telltale of the inside actor. If someone is truly an expert proponent of a subject, then that proponent should also be able to offer his subject’s most profound expert critique as well – and be forthcoming about unanswered daunting questions inside that subject. The key is to watch for this honesty in conviction – the faker does neither of these things – an only defends his precious argument. As an evolutionist, I do not believe that you support evolution, nor really even know it – if you cannot offer up a cogent and accurate summation of its current challenges and shortfalls. You may offer them up as ‘gaps’, but to totally ignore them tells the ethical skeptic that their opponent is both ignorant and dishonest as well.

So with that definition of the telltale of agency and handedness in mind, let us broach the topic of the agency with regard to the social skeptic.

Social Skepticism Information Handedness: No Different Than That of Religion

The seeker of truth, once in grasp of this Ockham’s Razor based tenet, often in a mild funk over failure of religion to deliver under a context of handedness – should next turn and set his or her newfound lens upon the Cabal of Social Skepticism. What the sincere ethical skeptic will find, is that in terms of the handedness of information, and the earmarked goal of personal or club gain, social skepticism is indeed no different than any religion.

The social skeptic agent, much as in the instance of the agency of religious interpretation, is on a mission to build his club through debunking, translating (cherry picking and straw man framing), and promulgating a twisted version of actual events, in order to enforce a doctrine which brings his club, power and money. You will notice that the same exact social dynamics and players – all the way through to the club exploitation of the digested version of the information for power, notoriety and money – they all exist in the exact same fashion as are deployed in the religious versions of information handedness.

For an example see Not So Fast: Anatomy of a Skeptic Hack Job

Social Skepticism is a form of Agency Handedness. Perhaps you can call this process underhandedness as well. They deal with nothing but 4th Hand information at best. And what 1st through 3rd Hand information they do employ, is cherry picked and selectively informed. Such skeptics are expert at the organic lie (telling a lie through selective facts or only a subset of the truth).

Agency Handedness of Social Skepticism

5th Hand – Disinform – a prejudicial spin, straw man, disinformation, or exaggeration which is extracted from 4th Hand information

6th Hand – Debunk – a transformed, misleading, witness disparaging and cherry picked set of 1st – 5th Hand information

7th Hand – Spin Propaganda – codification, club review or false authority derived from 5th and 6th Hand information

8th Hand – Enforce Social Skepticism – ongoing doctrine and pseudo-philosophy which is enforced upon the basis of official 7th Hand information

9th Hand – Enrich Self, Club, Celebrity Skeptics and Science Communicators – power, monetary income, club authority or personal celebrity which is derived from 8th Hand information

Epoché and The Handedness of Information

With epoché the principle is very simple – one remains neutral and level minded in response to handed information. Neither believing nor disbelieving it. This is not prejudicial doubt, rather deontological doubt – and the two are different. The principle, simply put, involves – going and looking for yourself. Understanding that answers do not come as easily as most people believe they do. The world, upon closer and closer examination, tends to become stranger and stranger. This, a seasoned and qualified philosopher, understands. Epoché therefore, is an active disposition of neutrality and suspension, meaning one desires to go and look, at any time during the process of handedness, short of having used it’s uncertainty for personal power or money. Once the ninth hand is reached, it is impossible to maintain epoché.

This is our mission – to go, to see, to catalog and observe, to listen, to find, to develop intelligence and necessity. To oppose agency. In this lonely journey you may find yourself surprised at how many things which ‘cannot exist’ – likely do exist, and how many creeds of certainty, fall to question. I leave you now with The First Duty of Ethical Skepticism.

The First Duty of Ethical Skepticism

The First Duty of Ethical Skepticism is to oppose agency. In the same way that science is a method, even so ignorance is also a method. But the scope of cultivated ignorance extends further than that of science itself, in that it is also a method of conditioning and contagion. It propagates through exploiting all manner of cunning and deceit. As an ethical skeptic, your first duty of philosophical acumen is not to execute the scientific method per se, which is straightforward in comparison. You are not here to promulgate conclusions, as that is the habit of your foe. Your ethical acumen is necessary rather, in spotting the clever masquerade of science and knowledge. Ethical Skepticism’s first duty therefore resides not solely in the examination of ‘extraordinary claims’, but also in examining those claims which serve to harm through the clever masquerade, hidden in plain sight, as if constituting ordinary ‘settled science’.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Epoché and The Handedness of Information” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 19 Aug 2018; Web,


August 19, 2018 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , | 14 Comments

Ketosis Lab Notes – Mitochondrial Suppression Disorder

Some people merely need cut out desserts for a month in order to lose the weight their doctor recommends. Others can consume and burn that same amount recommended by their doctor and still gain a substantial amount of weight throughout the course of each year. This despite matching their lower weight peers food for food, activity for activity. This latter condition is what is known as mitochondrial suppression.
Until the mitochondrial suppression sufferer can get into a therapeutic daily state of endogenous (and not exogenous) ketosis, they will continue gain more weight over time, and suffer more diseases of chronic malnutrition, than do their comparable practice non-sufferer peers. A keto diet is not a diet ‘high in fats’, rather it is a diet which cuts out the noise which carbohydrates add, so that one can perform diagnostics to determine the level of mitochondrial suppression from which they suffer.

Have you ever had a friend or an advising physician who seemed to be able to keep the weight off simply by cutting out desserts or initiating a little bit of exercise every once in a while? Have you experienced the challenge of exercising every single day, and constricting calories until you suffer severe malnutrition and the associated chronic diseases, for decades – yet you are still statistically ‘obese’? Well, there is a reason for this apparent inequity. Most Americans who do not suffer from this inequity, have no idea the extents to which its sufferer must go, in order to maintain a trim appearance and remain physically healthy. What is contained inside this blog article is not a study – rather a disciplined set of observation to intelligence to necessity. It stands as an appeal for plurality under Ockham’s Razor, concerning this very real physiological condition which I call: mitochondrial suppression. The efforts you will observe in this article constitute the obfuscated start of our scientific method, which labors truncated, beneath the overweight burden of our elitist, apathetic and fake form of skepticism. Herein we actually go there, look, experience, live for years inside, record observations, conduct analysis of, and develop a dissenting intelligence regarding an issue which they and their cronies have had all figured out through mere armchair plausibility.1

I have established in my own metabolism, a 650 calorie per day, every single day of my life, disadvantage. I must exercise more and eat less, than the average person to recover this imbued deficit, or face inevitable obesity – not overweight – obesity. Obesity is the disease which results from the environmental factor which is causing this mitochondrial suppression in Americans.

This entire cycle has nothing whatsoever to do with overeating and lack of exercise. You will observe social skeptics who get angry over keto diets and ketone tracking, because this analytical approach to weight management arms Americans with information2 – information they need in order to run diagnostics and observe mitochondrial suppression in their own bodies. Social skepticism thrives on, and maintains a goal of, ignorance. You will note that social skeptics grow angry any time their preferred state of ignorance is threatened.

“As early as 1969, research showed that losing just 3 percent of your body weight resulted in a 17 percent slowdown in your metabolism—a body-wide starvation response that blasts you with hunger hormones and drops your internal temperature until you rise back to your highest weight. Keeping weight off means fighting your body’s energy-regulation system and battling hunger all day, every day, for the rest of your life.”

     ~ Michael Hobbs, “Everything You Know About Obesity is Wrong”; Huffington Post3

Below I have run a series of tests in incremental critical path progression, and shown the associated bench notes upon a test subject’s4 physiology and blood chemistry, as it pertains to ketosis and the key energy centers inside the human cell, the mitochondria. I have identified an issue with regard to normal caloric consumption inside a particular human body physiology: that of the mitochondrial suppression sufferer.

There exist two states of human caloric burn profile, the normal function modeled by the orange curve in the Exhibit above, and the mitochondrial suppression curve modeled from the below observation data, in blue. While the below observation appeal does not pretend to suggest a cause for this malady, let’s take a look for a moment at an article which does. The below Time Magazine article suggests that much of medical science today not only understands that this condition exists; but moreover, after decades of enforced false moralizing wisdom, is finally in pursuit of its root, and fairly recent, cause.

What the researchers believe could be responsible for these differences [in metabolic profiles] is the microbiome—trillions of bacteria that live in the gut and differ wildly from person to person. Another recent study published in the journal Obesity Research & Clinical Practice found that even if they exercised and ate the same amount, an adult in 2006 is heavier than one in 1988. The study authors also suggested that changes in the microbiome could be at play, amid other possibilities. ~Alexandra Sifferlin, Time Magazine: “Why Losing Weight Is So Hard for Some People”5

The Normal Mitochondrial Burn

In the normal mitochondrial burn human physiology, a typical active person can consume on the order of 3000 calories per day, achieve the necessary USRDA 100% critical 90 human nutrients, and still initiate a condition called endogenous ketosis, wherein the body uses up its stores of glycogen, and begins to burn off a bit of body fat each day. In this type of body mitochondrial energy profile, if one gains a bit of weight over the years, generally all one has to do is cut out desserts or another favorite indulgence for a month, or exercise a bit – and things will be fine in a matter of weeks.  This is the type of person a typical doctor thinks they are encountering with every single new patient. I mean, it works for them right? Then why would it not work for everyone? Of course it works for everyone. Formula, rote, easy – the essence of abductive inference and diagnostician’s error. This type of physiology (orange curve above) generates a mitochondria-to-energy supply environment which produces a steady stream of ketone based cerebral and physical energy throughout most of the day. This type of endogenous keto-energy is clean and not brain-fog inducing. A tremendous resource which makes addressing the challenges of school and work, a bit less daunting. One would find it very difficult to attain a PhD, or much less become a doctor, were this beneficial physiology not in play. This, to my understanding, is why we have few doctors who know how to treat or have faced themselves, mitochondrial suppression.

My buddy from the Navy is like this. After 5 years, with no exercise regimen to speak of, he found he had gained 5 pounds since he left college. His pants were getting a bit tight. He cut out moose tracks ice cream for a month and everything was fine. He spent his extra time not exercising, by studying for his MCAT and medical school. He did well. ‘Why can’t everyone do this?” he would ask.

The condition cited in the case of my buddy above, is called ‘being overweight’ – this condition has nothing whatsoever to do, statistically, causally nor epidemiologically, with the condition of being obese. Most of our doctors today do not realize this, because they have been disinformed on this subject – both by their advisory resources and by their own life experience. Not everyone is like my friend above, especially when it comes to mitochondrial activity and a body’s ability to sustain an endogenous ketosis state on a daily basis.

The Suppressed Mitochondrial Burn

Those suffering mitochondrial suppression and the incumbent lack of nutrition and mental alacrity, who do manage to complete advanced degrees, work achievements or become doctors, are persons of extraordinary fortitude, persistence and character. They suffer through every single day of their lives – abjectly unaware that this level of suffering is anything but normal.

Fully unable to benefit from the pure mental energy derived from the ketone flush, they instead rely upon carbohydrates, alcohol, sugars and coffee to feed their cognitive endurance, and power through the challenge of each new day by means of utter survival. Their bodies bearing testament to the incumbent malady – mitochondrial suppression.

In the physiology exhibiting mitochondrial suppression (the blue curve in the Exhibit above), the sufferer is unable to consume a sufficient level of food which imparts the USRDA 100% for the majority of the 90 critical human nutrients, without greatly exceeding his or her caloric burn curve. By a good 650 calories per day. Exacerbate this condition through the most recent two-decade dilution of nutrient versus caloric biomass in our new growth-accelerant based agricultural products, and you have a stark and challenging epidemic at hand. In other words, if the mitochondrial suppression sufferer, despite a normal diet and exercise lifestyle, were to eat enough food in order to avoid the chronic diseases related to malnutrition, they would gain on the order of 30 lbs per year. Comparatively, the normal mitochondrial burn physiology person would remain at the same weight, and obtain all the nutrient they need.

The bottom line is that the person, like our test subject, who exhibits mitochondrial suppression, must undertake physical exercise above and beyond a normal active day burn curve, to the order of 650 calories per day – in order to consume enough food to ward off chronic diseases of malnutrition.

The old adage that ‘You get all the nutrition you need in a typical Western Diet’ – is a load of baloney for those who suffer mitochondrial suppression. Below, you will find my bench notes, developed from my study of the subject over the last 8 months. It took me some time and diligent measuring, to begin to observe what was going on (in the scientific method, this is called observation, intelligence and necessity – the part fake skeptics leave out). Once I had my observations, thoughts, measures and critical line of questioning/testing/reasoning gathered, I digested them into the set of bench notes depicted below.

A side discovery gleaned from the bench notes: Exogenous (provoked) ketosis is not the same condition as is endogenous ketosis. Exogenous ketone or BHB salts6 are a way to stimulate the body to produce a blood chemistry very similar to that found during endogenous (natural internal) ketosis. However, exogenous ketone salts and exogenously provoked ketosis, do not stimulate the body out of mitochondrial suppression to the same degree as does endogenous ketosis. Therefore the only effective therapeutic use of ketosis, is to create it naturally in the body. I was very disappointed as I deduced this answer, but this appears to be a sound principle (see bench notes below).

Round Up the Usual Suspects

Before we examine actual evidence however, let’s conduct a Google search to observe the current common wisdom surrounding this topic. I took a sweep through Google to see the top 40 sites which comment upon certain peoples’ inability to lose weight, and here is what they said in summary. The first two reasons are mutually exclusive, but cover all the options through a guaranteed-to-send-you-reeling bifurcation. Pseudo-theory spun inside the very first quips I encountered. The deceptive nature of pseudo-theory hinges upon the critical principles that – it comprehensively addresses every condition of plausibility, explains everything, and tenders conjecture inside realms of victim blame, or where testing is not easily conducted. Fortunately, there are people like me who do test these axioms. The advice below has consistently failed Americans for decades, and upon disciplined scrutiny, consistently turns out to be false.

   The Bullshit Blame of the ‘You Are’s’

  1. You are lying and you eat more than you say you are.
  2. You are not eating enough, your body is in ‘starvation mode’.
  3. You are mistaken that extra physical activity or exercise will cause you to lose weight.
  4. You are eating the wrong foods (what are these? what you are eating of course!) or the same foods all the time.
  5. You are doing the same exercise, or too much cardio, or are lifting weights too much or not enough.
  6. You are not getting enough sleep or are sleeping too long.
  7. You are drinking soft drinks or too much alcohol.
  8. You are too stressed out.
  9. You are gluttonous and lazy – and your memory of this is flawed – because memory is an unreliable form of evidence.
  10. You are ‘dieting’ and need a ‘lifestyle change’ – usually involving 6 am workouts and consuming 1200 calories per day and buying lots of high cost products and magazines.

Boy, they pretty much nailed 100% of the US demographic with these pearls of wisdom. Well done. Based upon this set of infallibles, everyone should be obese. The principle contained in this plethora of bullshit paid-pseudo-advice (pseudo-theory, which inhabits 38 of the top 40 rankings in a Google search7) doubles down upon the agenda of accusing the mitochondrial suppression victim of being the cause of the problem themself. Do we smell corporate social skepticism at play here? These old worn fables bear the very exploitation of journalism, plural arguing and Art of The Professional Lie characteristics which are the core habits of the social skepticism cabal. The straightforward critical path is, as a grouping, everyone does the things above. And among everyone, there exist some who are obese, some who are overweight, and some who find it hard to put on weight at all. So another differential factor is at play, undercurrent to this group of ignoratio elenchi disinformatives.

Fortunately for purposes of this eight month study, the test subject had already addressed all these pop-science factors. They were not effective in the least at contributing to weight loss. As well, please note with caution that a 1200 calorie a day Hollywood Starlet diet for the rest of your life, will make you chronically sick for the rest of your life – or even kill you. Do not do this. In order to obtain enough nutrient and to avoid chronic disease, you will need to consume 1800-2400 calories per day and supplement with 90 nutrients, and initiate a therapeutic endogenous ketosis each and every day (see below).

Ketosis, and the inability to enter that state, is the key problem. This is an issue of environmental compromise of body systems – and NOT human personal habits, within reason. If you are gluttonous and lazy, this is not the relevant domain nor context of our argument here. This serves to point out two rules about social skepticism, from the pages of The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation.

Google Blame Ranking Effect – If advice about what you are personally doing wrong, inhabits 90% of the first three pages of ranked responses on Google, it is most certainly wrong.

culpant et victima – Whenever a culprit is being concealed as to their introduction of a deleterious contribution, the victims will be assigned the blame for their handiwork.

So, without further ado, let us get back to the primary subject of this blog. The test subject initiated an 8 month protocol of ketosis testing, tracking and charting blood chemistry, detailed caloric consumption, life factors, exercise and weight, each day. Detailed charts were maintained and compiled into a series of bench notes below. A sample daily diary entry is shown in the chart immediately below. What follows hereafter are the results.

The Key Finding: Mitochondrial Suppression

The key finding of the 8 month effort was as follows.

A subset of normal health Americans are unable to lose weight at the medically established, and otherwise commonly attained, rate of 1 pound per 3500 calories of shortfall between physical activity burn and dietary consumption.8 It is conjectured that the experiencer of this disadvantage in physiology is suffering from a specific underlying condition which prohibits their ability to attain this normal physiological energy to meta-weight profile. This test, and the body of other studies like it, demonstrate that the sufferer of this conjectured disadvantage condition will also coincidentally experience difficulty in establishing daily therapeutic inception of natural endogenous ketosis. It is further conjectured that these two phenomena are causally linked, and as a factor set, far outweigh the impact of all other factors in terms of contribution to the sufferer’s healthy weight and weight loss. Therefore, it is conjectured that there exists a phenomenon of unknown cause among some of the American population, wherein a suppression of endogenous ketosis, as a reaction of the body’s cell-energy mitochondria management, is indicated.

Same individual, same lifestyle habits – two different seven day periods of 14,000 calorie shortfall between physical activity and food consumption.9 During the first test week (Exhibit A) the individual did not attempt any ketosis stimulation (shown in list below) and did not subsequently enter endogenous ketosis of any significance for the 7 day period – herein a weight loss of 1 lb was experienced. During an earlier week however (Exhibit B), the same profiled 14,000 calorie shortfall and practice set produced a 4.5 lb weight loss. However this week (Exhibit B) featured an average 35 mmol/L-hour sustained ketosis profile each day of that period. This same circumstance was replicated 3 more times. The weeks were separated in time so as not to be adjacent and influenced by weight measures shifting from one week to the next.  As a benchmark, the individual should have lost 3 to 4 pounds under normal expectation, even during the weeks which did not feature a ketosis mmol/L signature (as typified by Exhibit A). Yet consistently the individual failed to lose weight at this rate during the weeks in which endo-ketosis did not emerge. However, consistently during the weeks in which an endogenous ketosis profile was achieved (as typified by Exhibit B), the individual actually slightly outpaced the anticipated 3 to 4 lbs of weight lost under a 14,000 calorie shortfall for the period under consideration.

It is conjectured therefore that, in some Americans, there exists a phenomenon of mitochondrial energy consumption suppression, which prevents those individuals who suffer the condition, from entering a normal physiology of body energy-to-mass management – and results in chronic, apparent-stubborn and unhealthy weight gain in an otherwise healthy and reasonably lifestyled individual. Finally, it is conjectured that these same individuals, by means of the same underlying physiological contributor which expresses as mitochondrial suppression and/or through undertaking extreme measures to mitigate weight gain, may experience higher rates of chronic disease precipitated through persistent shortfalls in daily nutrition.

Stimulating Endogenous Ketosis

Stimulating endogenous (not provoking exogenous) ketosis is the only way to sustain weight loss in the mitochondrial suppression physiology. In the chart to the right you may observe that endogenous ketosis comes in the late morning or early afternoon, only after making the required disciplines (listed below). Once endo-ketosis is established, a limited amount of calories may be eaten. In the chart to the right you will see the impact of this caloric intake (yellow arrows) upon the overall state of endo-ketosis. The diary entry to the right constitutes a 70 mmol/L-hr day. Under this sustained profile, a person with mitochondrial suppression would lose 2 – 4 lbs per week. In absence of this ketosis curve, a person with mitochondrial suppression might lose nothing at all or very little, despite featuring the same caloric intake and activity profile. Taking BHB Salts will not produce this necessary endogenous condition the mitochondrial suppression sufferer needs – constituting merely an emulation of the same or similar blood profile acetoacetic acid mmol/L (millimoles per litre).  Below I have listed some tactics the test subject employed successfully to create ketosis (shown in the graphic to the right) on a regular basis (measured in the bench notes as mmol/L-hr, or millimoles per litre-hours – or “Volume’), under the period of this study.

   Tactics of Successful Endogenous Ketosis Under Mitochondrial Suppression

1.  Keep carbohydrate and sugar consumption low in the latter part of the day, after 6pm. Keep carb and sugar consumption low as an overall intake profile.

2.  Avoid consumption of food after 8pm each day. This benefits in ketosis the next day.

3.  Drink coffee in the AM and early PM, with 1/2 oz of MCT oil. This encourages the brain to release the body from the mitochondrial suppression state.

4.  Exercise is a must. Every day. Exercise does not immediately induce endogenous ketosis on the day it is performed, but it contributes to the next day’s endo-ketosis level.

5.  Psyllium husk added to the diet later in the day, will assist in attaining ketosis the next day, by helping keep the colon clean of debris. You will find that the ability to enter endo-ketosis and the state of the colon, are intimately linked. This will stand as a hint as to the cause of mitochondrial suppression later on.

6.  Bio-Available forms of vitamins B1, B2, B5, B6, NADH (B3), methylfolate (important: do not take ‘folic acid’) and methylcobalamine (B12) – all these MUST be taken early every morning and in the evening as well on hard activity days. The body will not kick off its Kreb’s Energy Cycle (and the resulting endo-ketosis) in absence of these critical nutrients. If you delay the intake of these vitamins, you will delay the onset of endogenous ketosis each day and reduce the resulting mmol/L-hrs you benefit from.

7.  Fasting, after breakfast and through the entire day all the way to a vegetable and protein 8pm dinner, is essential. If you can, fast for an even longer period, once a week. Eating steadily throughout the day only works AFTER you have established an 8 mmol/L endogenous ketosis or higher, and reasonably early in the day.

8.  Caloric intake must be well below the nutrient-sufficient 3000 calorie day (1800 – 2400 at most). Therefore you are going to NEED to supplement with critical proteins, vitamins and negative ion fulvic acid.

9.  Consume foods which match your genetic disposition and health. A good resource for this approach can be found at Dr. Peter J. D’Adamo’s site: Eat Right 4 Your Type (or book of the same name on Amazon) For me this involved cessation of wheat, barley, oats, corn, soy, canola oil, cottonseed oil, as well as pretty much anything bearing a risk of being sprayed with glyphosate (including to desiccate beans and seeds).

10.  Track your blood acetoacetic acid levels, via urine test strips, every two hours throughout the day until around 10pm. Keep track of what influences serve to therapeutically sustain endogenous ketosis day after day in your body.

11.  Ketosis can be earmarked by a very clear and alert mind – the pure energy of ketones in the blood performing much better as a cognitive energy source than either sugar or carbohydrates. However, one must eat steadily and in small quantities, once 8 mmol/L or higher has been established each day, in order to avoid keto-crash flu. Keto flu takes about 4 to 6 hours to recover from, and risks prompting the mitochondrial suppression victim to over-consume in response to its feeling of sickness/weakness.

12.  Ketosis is very hard to establish until one has taken a bowel movement. This is a sign, I conjecture, that the body is using every single calorie it can find – including ingesting ‘bad’ or contaminated calories, in order to sustain a substitute in its avoidance of using stored ketone energy.

Below, please see the notes I have assembled on this process of critical reduction.

The next question, and the one which social skeptics do not want answered, is: “What is the cause of mitochondrial suppression in its vulnerable American demographic?” It is something which kills microbiome bacteria and was introduced into our diet in the late 1990’s. Not sure what that could be. 🤔

We will get to that question in the coming years, as a group of pro-science and ethical skeptics.

Bench Notes on Mitochondrial Suppression and Ketosis

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Ketosis Lab Notes – Mitochondrial Suppression Disorder” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 17 Aug 2018; Web,


August 17, 2018 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | | 2 Comments

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: