The ‘Worthless Human’ Lie of the Diet Cartel

You are a defective human being. The ScienceTM shows that it is your worthlessness, absence of willpower (gluttony), and lack of exercise (laziness) which are the cause of all your health maladies.
At the core of this lie resides an abject gaslighting and abuse of its very victims. There exist only two entities which have direct access to the systems of the body which are coincidentally those also injured in obesity – the industrial agriculture and immunity-pharma cartels.

The guy in the photo to the right is supposedly an expert on obesity, health, weight, and appropriate human lifestyle. I am here to assure you, that he is not.

The gentleman to the right of course, conceals from his audience that he must work out for 4 or more hours per day, take fat-burning stimulants at a level fatal to many people, employ steroids and/or hormone boosters, spend $2500 a month on specialty food/supplements/injections and physical training, flush-out his intestines regularly with laxatives/chemicals, and fast/starve for days, all in order to look anywhere near like this depiction. Practices which most people cannot possibly incorporate into their lifestyle, unless one is a celebrity, independently wealthy, or chooses to have no life aside from this understated and misrepresented fanatical obsession.

Most diet case examples are not telling you their entire story. Yes they used the product being promoted, but they often do not tell you what else they did.

Now I would prefer of course to examine how this gentleman does with his hidden regimen across an entire life with 3 kids, endocrine, microbiome, and pancreatic injuries from childhood, while delivering premium performance in an analytical or labor position, one where money does not come in from sales commissions/salary/royalties – but rather, the mandatory long and overtime hours one puts into their work. If you have observed for example, a medical center registered nurse who is on their feet for an entire 17-hour waking day – between 10 hour shift rounds, 30,000 daily steps, calorie counting, and managing a family full time, and yet is still obese – one should take this as a critical-path hint, that something else is at play in this deductive framework. To most rational people this stands as a falsifying piece of evidence. Evidence demonstrating that the two industry cartels and their complicit diet mafias are lying to us.

Believe me, I have done caloric-workout programs (short of stimulants, steroids, and laxatives) and got them to work in the short term. Such programs do not work long term however, nor do they serve to resolve the underlying injury one has suffered. After age 40, from experience, once you hit your desired weight, the ensuing anemia and malnutrition will threaten your health and well being. Your metabolism will be in the crapper. The simple fact is that a ‘program’ cannot be sustained long term if it simply focuses on caloric intake and burn. What I have found is that it is red blood cell anemia (macrocytic and/or intravascular coagulation), an imbalance of intestinal bacteria, endocrine/autoimmune disorders, and a lack of available nutrition in food – which collectively cause a repressed metabolism and weight gain – and not personal moral weakness (see My Most Incredible Post-Covid After Workout Recovery Elixir).

“I lost 120 lbs in 9 months, and kept it off using ___________!!”

Yeah right. The poseur in the photo at the beginning of the article also curiously will not be found peddling this same program at age 60. Not because the program cannot be done at age 60, but rather he will find in the ensuing years that the real ‘program’ he undertook and did not tell anyone, does not actually work long term – and causes harm to one’s health to boot. It is the bad Hollywood Spandex act an attention-seeker puts on, portrayed to make other (inferior-looking) people feel guilty – a psyop used to coerce money out of the burdened victims of two specific industry cartels.

These cartels are the only two entities which have direct access to the very same systems of the body – which are those injured early in life,1 and are also highly involved with obesity and diabetes.2 This is not a coincidence. In other words, these cartels were the only two parties in the room, when the money went missing – and they both have a prior criminal record. However, it is the irony in whom they blame (you), which is even more telling.

Fundamental Attribution Error : Behaviorism

The tendency to attribute suffering to one’s behavior, psychological state, or inclination, before and as opposed to examining for factors which are out of their control, access, or knowledge.

You are a defective human being. Look at the jacked guy in this photo. The ScienceTM shows that it is your lack of being like him, your worthlessness, absence of moral willpower (diet), and abject laziness (exercise) which stand as the cause of all your health maladies and suffering (it has nothing to do with us so don’t even go there).

~ Colluding Diet Mafia Messaging

This array of pseudo-theory resides at the heart of modern American physical suffering. Two industries are to blame for the destruction of American health in the era since 1972, the American industrial agriculture and immunity-pharma cartels, along with their pseudo-scientific lying minions, and diet message mafias. The core lie above, which these American cartels promulgate towards their client consumers, is one of blame and guilt – a diabolical gaslighting and abuse of their very victims. A way of keeping scientific health research from ever focusing upon the handiwork of those two cartels at all.

Cabal Moralizing is Based Upon Six Key Myths

Myth #1: Anyone who keeps a healthy weight surely must have ‘changed their lifestyle’ (i.e. you are worthless)

Of course most people can stand some type of change in life-style habits. However, this contention stands as both a truism and a red herring as well. What the industry is selling you inside this wisdom is an implicit message of personal unacceptability. You are the way you are, because you are worthless. People secretly believe such nonsense about themselves without question. The industry is fully aware of this psychological lever and uses it against us. This is also how prescribing-technicians masquerading as doctors deflect accountability. ‘It’s your fault this is happening – I need listen no further.’ No paradigms will be busted today. From there, the culprit can simply relax and let the cash flow.

The simple fact is that it is the accelerated growth agrifoods and immunity-pharma industries which have caused the obesity epidemic – and not their hapless victims themselves.3 4 5 6 The central affected mechanism is outlined below.

HypoGlucagonopathy (Obesity) – the result of injury/impaired pancreatic alpha-cell function

GLP-1 [glucagon – from pancreatic alpha cells] analogs (sic) potently reduce food intake and body weight [an unintended secondary effect of 15% loss in body mass in nearly all test subjects].

~ Kanoski, et. al., GLP-1 and weight loss: unraveling the diverse neural circuitry7

Glucagon controls plasma glucose concentrations during fasting, exercise and hypoglycemia by increasing hepatic glucose output to the circulation. Additionally, it is a key factor in providing adequate circulating glucose for brain function and for working muscle during exercise. Glucagon stimulates breakdown of fatty acids and inhibits lipogenesis in the liver (NAFLD). Glucagon reduces the need for food intake as the brain’s primary energy supply. Glucagon increases energy expenditure.

~ Glucagon Physiology, July 20198

When one cannot release and burn fructose-glucose from the liver and fat cells when dieting and exercising (which is the basis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease), then one’s body must resort to burning alternative energy sources, in the form of an emergency metabolic state called ketosis. In ketosis, one skips past the normal release of glycogen/glucose from the liver and burns beta-hydroxybutyric acid (and two derivatives) instead.9 If you have not experienced the anemia and malnutrition at the end of such a sustained journey, then perhaps you should study a bit more and work with people of different body types, before speaking authoritatively. Glucagon is akin to water, it is essential for maintaining a healthy body weight. Obesity in its essence is, hypoglucagonopathy.

H2O [water – from oxidation of hydrogen] analogues potently reduce body desiccation, toxicity, and thirst morbidity. However, further study is needed because water use results in the death of 11 people per day, per the CDC. Plus, people may begin to view H2O as a magic-pill solution for staying alive, instead of doing the hard work of getting through the thirst.

~ A parody of modern health wisdom – our arrogant stupidity is harming tens of millions of people.

Of course humans require sound pancreatic alpha cell function (glucagon) or they will gain weight – this should have been discovered in the 1880’s, not the 2010’s. The fact that we are just now studying this, demonstrates how effective the cabal’s disinformation campaign has indeed been. There was no need to study something scientifically, for which we had already morally derived the correct answer. Heavy people are lazy and gluttonous, case closed.

Epicariacy trumps Ockham’s Razor necessity, every time.

In my studies, consuming glucose (and not sugar nor food) during fasting, serves to increase an excessively low resting heart rate (base metabolism, 51 increased to 58 bpm) and decrease a nagging starvation-appetite (hypoglycemic hunger, chronic blood sugar less than 60 mg/dl). Therefore, the absence of glucagon function in the pancreas is no accident with respect to one’s proclivity for gaining excess weight, as compared to a person who has normal pancreatic function.

Glucagon is the missing piece of the puzzle. What I have done in the past, is to simply power through the starvation, fatigue, brain fog, and low-blood-sugar tremors for decades. But no more. I am calling bullshit on the industry which has created this lie – a lie which has caused death, suffering, and harm to hundreds of millions of persons over its ensuing reign of ignorance.

Will Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1 Agonist avg price = $956 per month, August 2022) therapy ever be brought to market (other than for severe diabetes)? Obesity is a simple case of pancreatic injury. Nonetheless, it is doubtful that the agri-food and pharma industry will ever be held to account for the damage they have done. Moreover, the diet industry is $75 billion and the medical support industry around diabetes is $55 billion in magnitude. These numbers constitute simply the start of that entire gravy train – one which thrives upon human suffering. A therapy which would collapse both those markets in less than a decade, will never make it past social skeptics, who will hound it with ‘questions’ and ‘doubts’. Diligence the ilk of which was ironically never raised in the case of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine for instance – and obesity kills 4 times more people in one year than Covid-19 did during its entire pandemic.10

A correlation is never a mere coincidence if there is prior established mechanism (damage to alpha, acinar, and islet cells of the pancreas), as is the case with these two cartels and their scientifically untested products. The relationship demands investigation – as Ockham’s Razor has been far surpassed. When you witness agents such as David Gorski demanding through plausible deniability and public ridicule that such research be embargoed, know that by The Ethical Skeptic’s Razor, this is the first alternative which you should then examine. Everyone prevaricates at times – but it is those who appeal to the premature extinction of scientific ideas, who violate the wisdom of Solomon and the Two Mothers. Those are the liars on any given issue of public contention. You can pretty much guarantee that anything propaganda-pushed by the Science Based Medicine cabal itself constitutes corporate and social skeptic disinformation (see How to Detect Propaganda – The Art of the Professional Lie).

Myth #2: The same tactics you employ to lose weight, will also ‘keep the weight off’

Exhibit A – the human body does not read BMI charts. Its goal is to achieve its needed nutrition and system set energy reserve. It will drive caloric intake, as well as BMI, above the obesity line in quest of these first priorities. Pancreatic injury will cause the body-system’s set-point to reside higher than the BMI obesity line. This is not the fault of the person who suffers the malady. This arises from injury to pancreatic alpha cells and the resulting loss in glucagon function.

This is false. Once you have lost weight below your body’s set point, your metabolism will work HEAVILY against you in its efforts to re-attain that weight/nutrition level it is programmed (or functionally injured thereof) to maintain.11 The same ‘life-style change’ practices (usually involves lots of money and starvation) you employed to lose weight, will need to become even more extreme and stringent if you are to keep it off (the further to the right you go on the chart in Exhibit A). If you cannot up your game of fanaticism at this later time, well then too bad for you. This elasticity in BMI will be blamed on your being a weak ‘yo-yo dieter’ (another mafia condemnation and lie).

With the understanding in mind that malnutrition occurs when under 2,800 calories are consumed on a daily basis (NADH, essential proteins, trace minerals, calcium, magnesium, potassium, vitamins B12, B9, C, D, etc.), the net result of the mitochondrial suppression observed in Exhibit A above is this:

   Days 1 – 21  Goal:  lose 6 lbs

‣ Caloric Intake: 2,239 (mild malnutrition)
‣ Exercise required: 35 minutes, 3 to 4 times per week

   Days 91 – 112  Goal:  keep weight level (950 calorie mitochondrial suppression)

‣ Caloric Intake: 1,939 (severe malnutrition, red blood cell anemia, mild depression)
‣ Exercise required: 1 hour 10 minutes, every day

If you are cutting caloric intake and working out, you are committing slow suicide.

~ Dr. Joel D. Wallach, ND, The Truth About Nutrition

As one can see, in order to ‘keep the weight off’ 110 days into an exercise and diet regimen, one must risk their health. This is the nasty little secret that the guy in the photo at the start of this article does not offer up. No, the reality is that this struggle outlined above is a symptom of systemic injury inside the body (pancreatic alpha cells), and not personal weakness. The body will slow its metabolism and attempt to force an increase in appetite/consumption, in its quest to push your BMI back to its set point.12

Six years after participation in The Biggest Loser, they had all gained most of their weight back, significant slowing in metabolic rate still persisted among all participants, and those who lost the most weight, also showed the most metabolic slowing.

~Harvard Public Health Blog, 12 Mar 2018

Notice that you never hear from persons who are in their eighth or twelfth year of a weight loss program. That is because they suffer severe malnutrition and must back off the program in some form, before dying or destroying their health. If your liver, microbiome, or pancreatic alpha or islet cells have been damaged, you will not be able to simply ‘keep the weight off’. You must learn how to compensate for this injury first, without endangering your health.

Myth #3: You can get all the nutrition you need in a normal restricted-calorie western diet

Do the calculations (One can observe some here). Of the 110 key human micronutrients, vitamins, minerals, and macro nutrients, one need consume over 5500 calories per day in order to get close to the ridiculously low US Recommended Daily Allowance (US-RDA) of each – even eating the perfect combination of foods. This requires at least 2 hours of workouts per day, in addition to a full set of daily activities, in order to mitigate the energy load. Something is wrong in the implied math of these cartels, and it hinges upon a lie which they are peddling. A lie which involves artificially accelerated grains and immune systems.

Those who stay at a normal weight have won the luck of the genetic draw, and are not that way because they are fanatic about working out for hours a day. In fact, not one of those I know who are of normal weight, will attribute their weight to obsessive levels of exercise and diet, especially as they get older.

Myth #4: Obesity is simply a severe form of being overweight

Exhibit B – If the weight equation for obesity was caloric-driven, then by necessity, both overweight (yellow) and obese (blue and black) percentages should have increased simultaneously. The percent of population which is overweight did not increase over the last 50 years, therefore obesity results from an independent set of input variables.

Obesity is not simply a more severe form of being overweight. Sitting on the couch, eating chips, and living a sedentary lifestyle causes overweight. Being overweight is caused by caloric differential and can happen in anyone. Obesity is caused by bodily systemic injury and is part of a disease process that happens in mostly certain genetics – yet its suffering population is rising faster than is the overweight population (see Exhibit B to the right). The condition is exacerbated by a dilution of nutrient in our plant based, and subsequently animal protein based, food.13

Ceasing sitting on the couch, eating chips, and living a sedentary lifestyle will not serve to resolve nor cure obesity. The morbidity of obesity begins in childhood, well before one begins the symptom of putting on the weight from obesity.14 15

One can lose weight, but they cannot lose obesity. One can starve themself and exercise for hours a day, and this will not cure what is caused by systemic injury and disruption and nutrient shortfalls – any more than such activity can cure a broken leg.

[As far as] The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are concerned, obesity has been categorized as a chronic illness since 2004.

Myth #5: People are heavier today because they are more sedentary and consume more calories than the past

According to the USDA, the average person consumed 300 more calories per day in 2016 than they did in the 1970’s (the majority of the increase coming in the form of concealed oils).16 In contrast however, 69% of people by 1987 claimed to exercise regularly,17 far higher than the rate of 24% that claimed this in 1960.18 Thus our extra caloric intake has mostly been countered by extra physical activity.

Of greater salience to this argument, is a principle outlined in the journal Obesity Research & Clinical Practice, which found that people today who eat and exercise the same amount as people 20 years ago are still fatter. People today are about 10 percent heavier than people were in the 1980s, given the exact same diet and exercise plans.19

If you are 40 years old now, you’d have to eat even less and exercise more than if you were a 40 year old in 1971 to prevent gaining weight.

~Jennifer Kuk, Professor Kinesiology and Health Science, York University

On a personal note, I fast for the first 9 hours of the day and then consume a glucose (no sugar) drink (See this article) after my afternoon workout to prevent a blood sugar crash (my pancreas is injured and will not release glucagon, which triggers release of glucose from the body and liver, to prevent this). Then dinner consists of a protein (as a side dish – fish, chicken, lamb in smaller quantity, not a main entree), spinach or kale, stewed potato (for potassium), and lots of veggies of varying kinds with grass fed butter and sauerkraut. I will finish the evening while writing, researching, or viewing a program, with a single beer and a bit of cheese. I do not consume grains for the most part, save for rice bread and a bit of organic corn tortilla once or twice a week.

As a result while my weight is not obese, my body systems still bear the injury from the introduction of glyphosate in the Fall of 1995 along with damage from early childhood immune system tampering resulting in a couple chronic autoimmune syndromes. If I eat as a normal person my age and gender does, I will gain 3 to 6 lbs a month easily, even with workouts. As a result, I suffer severe anemia and nutrition shortfalls, which have required a lifetime of supplement research and testing to help resolve. Most people cannot do this – and remain victims of these two cabals and their colluding mafia.

Merely losing weight, does not in any way shape or form, cause one to lose the systemic dysfunction of obesity. This chronic condition is for life.

My daily regimen results in 3100 – 3500 calories burned and 2100 – 2500 calories consumed on an average daily basis (see example personal logs extract in above right image). I keep meticulous and very detailed logs on this. By now, under the Wishnofsky dietary formula, after all these years, I should weigh minus 200 lbs. So obviously the calorie understanding of weight only applies to a short time-span, and cannot be used to adjudicate what is happening to the American population at large (pardon the pun).

It is time for these excuse-making myths to die. They only serve to harm the innocent and protect the diabolical. We close now, with a list of twisted logical arguments which help sustain this collusive and evil cabal.

Myth #6: Deception thru Affirming the Consequent – If p then q. Given q, therefore p

  • People who increase exercise, weigh less after they do so. Therefore, all normal-weight persons are consistently exercising.
  • People who restrict calories, weigh less after doing so. Therefore, all normal-weight persons are consistently restricting calories.
  • If you stop what you did to lose weight, you will gain weight back. Therefore, if you gain weight back you have failed in your program discipline (and are now a failed worthless human).
  • People who are obese have poorer health, therefore obesity is the cause of this poor health state. So don’t be obese.
  • I work out 3 times per week and am fine. You can work out 3 times a week as well, and you will be fine too. It is just a matter of motivation and habit.
  • All the people who consume premium gym/exercise program/equipment are young and good looking. Therefore, using those things will keep you young and good looking.
  • Nutritional supplements often come in the form of pills. Therefore, those who use supplements are looking for a quick-fix pill solution.
  • Mega doses of Vitamin C was found to not cure cancer. Therefore, supplements are a waste of money.
  • Fit people workout for a mere 20 minutes per day on average. Therefore, 20 minutes per day workouts is all anyone needs in order to become fit.

All of this reflects the widespread false common wisdom and industry propaganda which is employed to deflect accountability from these industry cartels and their complicit diet industry mafia. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Covid-19 pandemic has shed light on just how incompetent and dishonest these industries really are.

The Ethical Skeptic, “The ‘Worthless Human’ Lie of the Diet Cartel”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 9 Jul 2022; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2022/07/09/the-worthless-human-lie-of-the-diet-cartel/

Skeptics Need You – But You Don’t Need Them

Stop striving to impress skeptics. Just because scientists employ skepticism, does not mean therefore that skeptics represent science. In fact, they only serve to personify a straw man of science. They seek to foment conflict between the public and scientists – because that serves to impart power to them and their club.
A hypocrisy meme, where a man disdainfully holds his intellectual looking spectacles in the air and cites that the job of skeptics is to promote a better understanding of science. Then ironically, starts spinning a whole slew of reasons why science finds the reader unacceptable and calls them names and irrational.

Skeptics have placed you under the spell of a little mind trick. They do not seek the truth of any particular matter, rather they seek only to leverage your sincerity, wonder and inquisitiveness towards a goal of power, humiliation and polarization. They wish you to infer that scientists regard your lines of inquiry, rights and notions – as woo. They wish to imply that science relies upon proof and that scientists have disproved you, and further regard you as anti-science (q.e.d. anti-them).  Upon sensing this finger-point generated animus, scientists begin to perceive much of the public as a frothing, anti-science horde who cannot fathom what they do, and further must now be ignored in order to save the world. This is the actual lesson skeptics are teaching all concerned on both sides – “You must worship me as the smartest, cede unto me the power of punishment (of both the public and scientists) – as I now represent science.” It is a clever little social trick of identity bullying.

In this they ironically pose as a factor which promotes understanding of science on the part of the public.

Skeptics desperately need you – to add fuel to their superiority complex, polarizing message, power to humiliate, club member ranking, acclaim, and to tacitly reinforce their religious view of the world however, you do not need them. You do not need to invite them to events to ‘provide a skeptical perspective’, as this is part of the game of misrepresentation which they play on everyone. Most researchers are already skeptical in their work; most scientists are skeptics by nature and training. This infusion of discipline is a natural part of living a sincere, hard working life. But this does not mean that self-identity skeptics do any research, nor that they are sincere, nor that they are scientists – nor especially that they represent science.

Through personifying a straw man of science, skeptics seek to foment conflict between the public and science
– a state wherein their club gains authority along with the power to punish;
because both science and the public now perceive each other as the denialist enemy.
An enemy which you must fear, mistrust and marginalize.

Do not fall for this game. You will know that you have won, when skeptics ignore you back.

The Ethical Skeptic, “Skeptics Need You – But You Don’t Need Them”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 4 Dec 2018; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2018/12/04/skep-need-u/

Discerning Sound from Questionable Science Publication

Non-replicatable meta-analyses published in tier I journals do not constitute the preponderance of good source material available to the more-than-casual researcher. This faulty idea stems from a recently manufactured myth on the part of social skepticism. Accordingly, the life-long researcher must learn techniques beyond the standard pablum pushed by social skeptics; discerning techniques which will afford them a superior ability to tell good science from bad – through more than simply shallow cheat sheets and publication social ranking classifications.
The astute ethical skeptic is very much this life-long and in depth researcher. For him or her, ten specific questions can serve to elucidate this difference inside that highly political, complicated and unfair playing field called science.

the-ten-study-questionsRecently, a question was posed to me by a colleague concerning the ability of everyday people to be able to discern good scientific work from dubious efforts. A guide had been passed around inside her group, a guide which touted itself as a brief on 5 key steps inside a method to pin-point questionable or risky advising publications. The author cautioned appropriately that “This method is not infallible and you must remain cautious, as pseudoscience may still dodge the test.” He failed of course to mention the obvious additional risk possibility that the method could serve to screen science which either 1) is good but cannot possibly muster the credential, funding and backing to catch the attention of crowded major journals, or 2) is valid, however is also screened by power-wielding institutions which could have the resources and connections as well as possible motive to block research on targeted ideas. The article my friend’s group was circulating in consideration constituted nothing but a Pollyanna, wide-eyed and apple pie view of the scientific publication process. One bereft of the scarred knuckles and squint-eyed wisdom requisite in discriminating human motivations and foibles.

There is much more to this business of vetting ideas than simply identifying the bad people and the bad subjects. More than simply crowning the conclusions of ‘never made an observation in my life’ meta-analyses as the new infallible standard of truth.

Scientific organizations are prone to the same levels of corruption, bias, greed, desire to get something for as little input as possible, as is the rest of the population. Many, or hopefully even most, individual scientists buck this mold certainly, and are deserving of utmost respect. However, even their best altruism is checked by organizational practices which seek to ensure that those who crave power, are dealt their more-than-ample share of fortune, fame and friar-hood. They will gladly sacrifice the best of science in this endeavor. And in this context of human wisdom it is critical that we keep watch.

If you are a casual reader of science, say consuming three or four articles a month, then certainly the guidelines outlined by Ariel Poliandri below, in his blog entitled “A guide to detecting bogus scientific journals”, represent a suitable first course on the menu of publishing wisdom.¹ In fact, were I offered this as the basis of a graduate school paper, it would be appropriately and warmly received. But if this is all you had to offer the public after 20 years of hard fought science, I would aver that you had wasted your career therein.

1 – Is the journal a well-established journal such as Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, etc.?
2 – Check authors’ affiliations. Do they work in a respectable University? Or do they claim to work in University of Lala Land or no university at all?
3 – Check the Journal’s speciality and the article’s research topic. Are the people in the journal knowledgeable in the area the article deals with?
4 – Check the claims in the title and summary of the article. Are they reasonable for the journal publishing them?
5 – Do the claims at least make sense?

The above process suffers from a vulnerability in hailing only science developed under what is called a Türsteher Mechanism, or bouncer effect. A process producing a sticky but unwarranted prejudice against specific subjects. The astute researcher must ever be aware of the presence of this effect. An awareness which rules out the above 5 advisements as being sufficient.

Türsteher Mechanism

/philosophy : science : pseudoscience : peer review bias/ : the effect or presence of ‘bouncer mentality’ inside journal peer review. An acceptance for peer review which bears the following self-confirming bias flaws in process:

  1. Selection of a peer review body is inherently biassed towards professionals who the steering committee finds impressive,
  2. Selection of papers for review fits the same model as was employed to select the reviewing body,
  3. Selection of papers from non core areas is very limited and is not informed by practitioners specializing in that area, and
  4. Bears an inability as to how to handle evidence that is not gathered in the format that it understands (large scale, hard to replicate, double blind randomized clinical trials or meta-studies).

Therein such a process, the selection of initial papers is biased. Under this flawed process, the need for consensus results in not simply attrition of anything that cannot be agreed upon – but rather, a sticky bias against anything which has not successfully passed this unfair test in the past. An artificial and unfair creation of a pseudoscience results.

This above list by Mr. Poliandri represents simply a non-tenable way to go about vetting your study and resource material so that only pluralistic ignorance influences your knowledge base. It is lazy – sure to be right and safe – useless advisement, to a true researcher. The problem with this list resides inside some very simple industry realities:

1.  ‘Well-established journal’ publication requires sponsorship from a major institution. Scientific American cites that 88% of scientists possess no such sponsorship, and this statistic has nothing to do with the scientific groups’ relative depth in subject field.² So this standard, while useful for the casual reader of science, is not suitable at all for one who spends a lifetime of depth inside a subject. This would include for instance, a person studying impacting factors on autism in their child, or persons researching the effect of various supplements on their health. Not to mention of course, the need to look beyond this small group of publications applies to scientists who spend a life committed to their subject as well.

One will never arrive at truth by tossing out 88% of scientific studies right off the bat.

2.  Most scientists do not work for major universities. Fewer than 15% of scientists ever get to participate in this sector even once in their career.² This again is a shade-of-gray replication of the overly stringent filtering bias recommended in point 1. above. I have employed over 100 scientists and engineers over the years, persons who have collectively produced groundbreaking studies. For the most part, none ever worked for a major university. Perhaps 1 or 2 spent a year inside university affiliated research institutes. Point 2 is simply a naive standard which can only result in filtering out everything with the exception of what one is looking for. One must understand that, in order to survive in academia, one must be incrementally brilliant and not what might be even remotely considered disruptively brash. Academics bask in the idea that their life’s work and prejudices have all panned out to come true. The problem with this King Wears No Clothes process is that it tends to stagnate science, and not provide the genesis of great discovery.

One will never arrive at truth by ignoring 85% of scientists, right off the bat.

3.  There are roles for both specialty journals and generalized journals. There is a reason for this, and it is not to promote ‘bogus pseudoscience’ as the blog author implies (note his context framing statement in quotes above). A generalized journal maintains resource peers to whom they issue subject matter for review. They are not claiming peer evaluation to be their sole task. Larger journals can afford this, but not all journals can. Chalk this point up as well up to naivete. Peer review requires field qualification; however in general, journal publication does not necessarily. Sometimes they are one in the same, sometimes not. Again, if this is applied without wisdom, such naive discrimination can result in a process of personal filtering bias, and not stand as a suitable standard identifying acceptable science.

One will never arrive at truth by viewing science peer review as a sustainable revenue club. Club quality does not work.

4.  Check for the parallel nature of the question addressed in the article premise, methodology, results, title and conclusion.  Article writers know all about the trick of simply reading abstracts and summaries. They know 98% of readers will only look this far, or will face the requisite $25 to gain access further than the abstract. If the question addressed is not the same throughout, then there could be an issue. As well, check the expository or disclosure section of the study or article. If it consists even in part, of a polemic focusing on the bad people, or the bad ideas, or the bad industry player – then the question addressed in the methodology may have come from bias in the first place. Note: blog writing constitutes this type of writing. A scientific study should be disciplined to the question at hand, be clear on any claims made, and as well any preliminary disclosures which help premise, frame, constrain, or improve the predictive nature of the question. Blogs and articles do not have to do this; however, neither are they scientific studies. Know the difference.

Writers know the trick – that reviewers will only read the summary or abstract. The logical calculus of a study resides below this level. So authors err toward favoring established ideas in abstracts.

5.  Claims make sense with respect to the context in which they are issued and the evidence by which they are backed. Do NOT check to see if you believe the claims or they make some kind of ‘Occam’s Razor’ sense. This is a false standard of ‘I am the science’ pretense taught by false skepticism. Instead, understand what the article is saying and what it is not saying – and avoid judging the article based on whether it says something you happen to like or dislike. We often call this ‘sense’ – and incorrectly so. It is bias.

Applying personal brilliance to filter ideas, brilliance which you learned from only 12% of publication abstracts and 15% of scientists who played the game long enough – is called: gullibility.

It is not that the body of work vetted by such criteria is invalid; rather simply that – to regard science as only this – is short sighted and bears fragility. Instead of these Pollyanna 5 guidelines, the ethical skeptic will choose to understand whether or not the study or article in question is based upon standards of what constitutes good Wittgenstein and Popper science. This type of study can be conducted by private lab or independent researchers too. One can transcend the Pollyanna 5 questions above by asking the ten simple questions regarding any material – and outlined in the graphic at the top of this article. Epoché is exercised by keeping their answers in mind, without prejudice, as onward you may choose to read. Solutions to problems come from all levels and all types of contributors. This understanding constitutes the essence of wise versus naive science.

“Popper holds that there is no unique methodology specific to science. Science, like virtually every other human, and indeed organic, activity, Popper believes, consists largely of problem-solving.”³

There are two types of people, those who wish to solve the problem at hand, and those who already had it solved, so it never was a problem for them to begin with, rather simply an avenue of club agenda expression or profit/career creation.

Let’s be clear here: If you have earned tenure as an academic or journal reviewer or a secure career position which pays you a guaranteed $112,000 a year, from age 35 until the day you retire, this is the same as holding a bank account with $2,300,000 in it at age 35† – even net of the $200,000 you might have invested in school. You are a millionaire. So please do not advertise the idea that scientists are all doing this for the subject matter.

$2.3 million (or more in sponsorship) is sitting there waiting for you to claim it – and all you have to do is say the right things, in the right venues, for long enough.

This process of depending solely on tier I journals – is an exercise in industry congratulationism. There has to be a better way to vet scientific study, …and there is. The following is all about telling which ilk of person is presenting an argument to you.

The Ten Questions Differentiating Good Science from Bad

better-science-1Aside from examining a study’s methodology and logical calculus itself, the following ten questions are what I employ to guide me as to how much agenda and pretense has been inserted into its message or methodology. There are many species of contention; eight in the least if we take the combinations of the three bisected axes in the graph to the right. Twenty four permutations if we take the sequence in which the logic is contended (using falsification to promote an idea versus promoting the idea that something ‘will be falsified under certain constraints’, etc.) In general, what I seek to examine is an assessment of how many ideas the author is seeking to refute or promote, with what type of study, and with what inductive or deductive approach. An author who attempts to dismiss too many competing ideas, via a predictive methodology supporting a surreptitiously promoted antithesis, which cannot possibly evaluate a critical theoretical mechanism – this type of study or article possesses a great likelihood of delivering bad science. Think about the celebrity skeptics you have read. How many competing ideas are they typically looking to discredit inside their material, and via one mechanism of denial (usually an apothegm and not a theoretical mechanism)? The pool comprises 768 items – many to draw from – and draw from this, they do.

Let’s be clear here – a study can pass major journal peer review and possess acceptable procedural/analytical methodology – but say or implicate absolutely nothing for the most part. Ultimately being abused (or abusing its own research in extrapolating its reach) to say things which the logical calculus involved would never support (see Dunning-Kruger Abuse). Such conditions do not mean that the study will be refused peer review. Peer reviewers rarely ever contend (if they disregard the ‘domain of application’ part of a study’s commentary):

“We reject this study because it could be abused in its interpretation by malicious stakeholders.” (See example here: http://www.medicaldaily.com/cancer-risks-eating-gmo-corn-glyphosate-vs-smoking-cigarettes-according-411617)

Just because a study is accepted for and pass peer review, does not mean that all its extrapolations, exaggerations, implications or abuses are therefore true. You, as the reader are the one who must apply the sniff test as to what the study is implying, saying or being abused to say. What helps a reader avoid this? Those same ten questions from above.

null-hypothesisThe ten questions I have found most useful in discerning good science from bad, are formulated based upon the following Popperian four-element premise.² All things being equal, better science is conducted in the case wherein

  • one idea is
  • denied through
  • falsification of its
  • critical theoretical mechanism.

If the author pulls this set of four things off successfully, eschews promotion of ‘the answer’ (which is the congruent context to one having disproved a set of myriad ideas), then the study stands as a challenge to the community and must be sought for replication (see question IX below). For the scientific community at large to ignore such a challenge is the genesis of (our pandemic) pluralistic ignorance.

For instance, in one of the materials research labs I managed, we were tasked by an investment fund and their presiding board to determine the compatibility of titanium to various lattice state effects analogous to iron. The problem exists however in that titanium is not like iron at all. It will not accept the same interstitial relationships with other small atomic radius class elements that iron will (boron, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen). We could not pursue the question the way the board posed it. “Can you screw with titanium in exotic ways to make it more useful to high performance aircraft?”  We first had to reduce the question into a series of salient, then sequitur Bayesian reductions. The first question to falsify was “Titanium maintains its vacancy characteristics at all boundary conditions along the gamma phase state?” Without an answer (falsification) to this single question – not one single other question related to titanium could be answered in any way shape or form. Most skeptics do not grasp this type of critical path inside streams of logical calculus. This is an enormous source of confusion and social ignorance. Even top philosophers and celebrity skeptics fail this single greatest test of skepticism. And they are not held to account because few people are the wiser, and the few who are wise to it – keep quiet to avoid the jackboot ignorance enforced by the Cabal.

Which introduces and opens up the more general question of ‘What indeed, all things being considered, makes for good effective science?” This can be lensed through ten useful questions below, applied in the same fashion as the titanium example case:

I. Has the study or article asked and addressed the 1. relevant, 2. salient, 3. sound and 4. critical path next question under the scientific method?

If it has accomplished this, it is already contending for tier I science, as only a minority of scientists understand how to pose reductive study in this way. A question can be relevant, but not salient to the question at hand. This is the most common trick of pseudoscience. The question can also be relevant and salient, yet be asked in incorrect sequence, so as to frame its results in a prejudicial light. If this diligence has not been done then do not even proceed to the next questions II though VII below. Throw the study in the waste can. Snopes is notorious for this type of chicanery. The material is rhetoric, targeting a victim group, idea or person.

If the answer to this is ‘No’ – Stop here and ignore the study. Use it as an example of how not to do science.

II. Did the study or article focus on utilization of a critical theoretical mechanism which it set out to evaluate for validity?

The litmus which differentiates a construct (idea or framework of ideas) from a theory, is that a theory contains a testable and critical theoretical mechanism. Was the critical theoretical mechanism identified and given a chance for peer input prior to its establishment? Or was it just assumed as valid by a small group, or one person? For instance, a ‘DNA Study’ can examine three classes of DNA: mtDNA, autosomal DNA, or Y-DNA. If it is a study of morphology, yet examines the Y-DNA only for example, then the study is fraud. Y-DNA has nothing to do with morphology or genetic makeup. This would be an example of an invalid (probably slipped by as an unchallenged assumption) critical test mechanism.

If the answer to this is ‘No’ – Regard the study or article as an opinion piece, or worse propaganda piece, and not of true scientific incremental value.

III.  Did the study or article attempt to falsify this mechanism, or employ it to make predictions? (z-axis)

Karl Popper outlined that good science involves falsification of alternative ideas or the null hypothesis. However, given that 90% of science cannot be winnowed through falsification alone, it is generally recognized that a theory’s predictive ability can act as a suitable critical theoretical mechanism via which to examine and evaluate. Evolution was accepted through just such a process. In general however, mechanisms which are falsified are regarded as stronger science over successfully predictive mechanisms. A second question to ask is, did the study really falsify the mechanism being tested for, or did it merely suggest possible falsity? Watch for this trick of pseudoscience.

If the study or article sought to falsify a theoretical mechanism – keep reading with maximum focus. If the study used predictive measures – catalog it and look for future publishing on the matter.

IV.  Did the study or article attempt to deny specific idea(s), or did it seek to promote specific idea(s)? (x-axis)

Denial and promotion of ideas is not a discriminating facet inside this issue stand alone. What is significant here is how it interrelates with the other questions. In general attempting to deny multiple ideas or promote a single idea are techniques regarded as less scientific than the approach of denying a single idea – especially if one is able to bring falsification evidence to bear on the critical question and theoretical mechanism. Did the study authors seem to have a commitment to certain jargon or prejudicial positions, prior to the results being obtained? Also watch for the condition where a cherry picked test mechanism may appear to be a single item test, yet is employed to deny an entire series of ideas as a result. This is not actually a condition of single idea examination, though it may appear to be so.

Simply keep the idea of promotion and denial in mind while you consider all other factors.

V.  Did the study affix its contentions on a single idea, or a group of ideas? (y-axis)

In general, incremental science and most of discovery science work better when a study focuses on one idea for evaluation and not a multiplicity of ideas. This minimizes extrapolation and special pleading loopholes or ignorance. Both deleterious implications for a study. Prefer authors who study single ideas over authors who try and make evaluations upon multiple ideas at once. The latter task is not a wise undertaking even in the instance where special pleading can theoretically be minimized.

If your study author is attempting to tackle the job of denying multiple ideas all at once – then the methodical cynicism alarm should go off. Be very skeptical.

VI.  What percent of the material was allocated towards ideas versus the more agenda oriented topics of persons, events or groups?

If the article or study spends more than 10% of its Background material focused on persons, events or groups it disagrees with, throw the study in the trash. If any other section contains such material above 0%, then the study should be discarded as well. Elanor Roosevelt is credited with the apothegm “Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.” Did the study make a big deal about its ‘accoutrements and processes of science’ – in an attempt to portray the appearance of legitimacy. Did the study sponsors photograph themselves wearing face shields and lab coats and writing in notebooks. This is often pretense and promotion, beware.

Take your science only from great minds focusing on ideas and not events or persons.

As well, if the author broaches a significant amount of related but irrelevant or non-salient to the question at hand material, you may be witnessing an obdurate, polemic or ingens vanitatum argument. Do not trust a study or article where the author appears to be demonstrating how much of an expert they are in the matter (through addressing related but irrelevant and non-salient or non-sequitur material). This is irrelevant and you should be very skeptical of such publications.

VII. Did the author put an idea, prediction or construct at risk in their study?

Fake science promoters always stay inside well established lines of social safety, so that they are 1) Never found wrong, 2) Don’t bring the wrong type of attention to themselves (remember the $2.6+ million which is at stake here), and 3) Can imply their personal authority inside their club as an opponent-inferred appeal in arguing. They always repeat the correct apothegm, and always come to the correct conclusion. Did the study sponsor come in contending that they ‘can do the study quickly’, followed by a low cost and ‘simple’ result which conformed with a pre-selected answer? Don’t buy it.

Advancing science always involves some sort of risk. Do not consider those who choose paths of safety, familiarity and implied authority to possess any understanding of science.

VIII.  Was the study? (In order of increasing gravitas)

1.  increasing-gravitasPsychology or Motivation (Pseudo-Theory – Explains Everything)

2.  Meta-Data – Studies of Studies (Indirect Data Only vulnerable to Simpson’s Paradox or Filtering/Interpretive Bias)

3.  Data – Cohort and Set Measures (Direct but still Data Only)

4.  Direct Measurement Observation (Direct Confirmation)

5.  Inductive Consilience Establishment (Preponderance of Evidence from Multiple Channels/Sources)

6.  Deductive Case Falsification (Smoking Gun)

All it takes in order to have a strong study is one solid falsifying observation. This is the same principle as is embodied inside the apothegm ‘It only takes one white crow, to falsify the idea that all crows are black’.

IX.  When the only viable next salient and sequitur reductive step, post study – is to replicate the results – then you know you have a strong argument inside that work.

X.  Big data and meta-analysis studies like to intimidate participants in the scientific method with the implicit taunt “I’m too big to replicate, bring consensus now.”

These questions, more than anything else – will allow the ethical skeptic to begin to grasp what is reliable science and what is questionable science. Especially in the context where one can no longer afford to dwell inside only the lofty 5% of the highest regarded publications or can no longer stomach the shallow talking point sheets of social skepticism – all of which serve only to ignore or give short shrift to the ideas to which one has dedicated their life in study.

epoché vanguards gnosis


¹  Poliandri, Ariel; “A guide to detecting bogus scientific journals”; Sci – Phy, May 12, 2013; http://sci-phy.com/detecting-bogus-scientific-journals/

²  Beryl Lieff Benderly, “Does the US Produce Too Many Scientists?; Scientific American, February 22, 2010; https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-us-produce-too-m/

³  Thornton, Stephen, “Karl Popper”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/popper/&gt;

†  Present Value of future cash flows with zero ending balance: 456 payments of $9,333 per month at .25% interest per payment period.