Thank you for doing this treatment of what is admittedly a very complex subject with many permutations. It makes an excellent companion piece to your other one on "Control Experiments and the Intention to Deceive." I sense you are trying to be scrupulously honest and precise which I greatly appreciate because I only want to know the truth about this subject.
Take a whole bunch of religious/spiritual groups, nature lovers, death cults, the corporate minded, scientist, individualists, social engineers, freedom takers, the super rich, truth seekers, technocratic freaks, and put them all on a ball spinning round and around an see who gets the dizziest fighting for their POV. There's an ongoing experiment.
Enjoyed the piece and the discussions and learned some things.
Thank you (ALL) for your tireless effort/contribution to clear up all the rubble - one grain of lie-sand at a time - that has been accumulated over millennia by man and woman telling each other HALF-TRUTHS and then believing them wholeheartedly out of fear of becoming an outcast. Based on the trillions of HALF-TRUTHS man and woman were telling each other on a daily basis they ARE building a HOUSE OF LIES that now stares EVERYONE of us participating in this CIRCUS OF MADNESS in the face. Overcoming the fear of ostracisation/loosing all worldly reward is nothing to be underestimated and tempered with lightly.
Be wise like serpents and as gentle as doves. - THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
Let me leave a thought for everyone's consideration
" Notice that control experiments are defined by their function or purpose, namely, to determine the impact of certain variables on the results of the main experiment. "
The graphic that you are using already (FALSELY) insinuates/assumes that all factors that influence the plant CAN be known and on top of that that the factors we CONSIDER can be "controlled" in REALITY, without realising that the "controlling" only takes place in our mind, i.e. based on THE MODEL our mind has created how REALITY works.
And I am not saying this to condemn "control" experiments but solely in order to highlight my observation that we most of the time are getting lost in our mental model rather than looking at REALITY ITSELF. One simple contrary to easy - as it is really hard - approach is to admit "I ASSUME" contrary to "I KNOW". It's akin to "question everything that you believe to be REALITY in order to realise/admit what is made up by the mind and out of curiosity - like a little child - digging deeper and deeper, in all walks of LIFE, and as a result being HANDED better and better discernment by GOD ALMIGHTY./THE HOLY SPIRIT."
Which is what I believe to be the reason for this statement of THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:
31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Matt 12, 31-32
and
31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Jn 8, 31-32
(I wonder who does see that both quotes are from verses 31-32? - those who did not have displayed the blindness I was talking about above)
I would really prefer it if Mia not attempt to speak on behalf of the signatories of the “Settling the virus debate” challenge as I am one of those signatories and she was not involved in my decision to sign onto the challenge.
I signed onto the challenge b/c I expect that labs would fail to get consistent results and thus the results would show that the assumptions of virologists are wrong... not because I expect that the results would show that there could not be a "virus".
Quote from the actual challenge:
"If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses."
Showing that the virologists' claims are unfounded and showing that a "virus" could not be involved are not the same thing.
Mia asserts that Enders' research on the imaginary measles virus "amounts to a valid control experiment". A valid control experiment would require a valid IV to be manipulated such that the experimental group is exposed and the control group isn't. This would require the IV to have been identified in advance - purified particles suspected of being "the virus". Enders didn't have that, and so a valid experiment was not possible. Further, he did not describe having obtained purified particles for use in the "control" arm, or from the "control" arm, and thus his story about a “second agent obtained from an uninoculated kidney culture” is just that - a story. I try not to breath life into such an unproven story.
Having said that, there's a big difference between pointing out that an experiment or procedure is unscientific or invalid, and saying that is has no value. I don't know any no-virus people who claim that there is no value or purpose in implementing "controls" outside the context of a strictly scientific experiment.
Stefan Lanka's brilliant work has shown that the assumptions of virologists are faulty, and the value of this is immeasurable. I don't know any no-virus people who disregard his experiments or don't value them. To my knowledge, everyone has immense appreciation and respect for Dr. Lanka and his experiments, so I wonder why Mia implies that this is an issue among no-virus people.
At the same time, one should be careful about claiming that some cell culture "controls" "proved" that there is no "virus" involved. Virus-pushers can easily offer an unproven alternative explanation for the results: that there was an unexpected "virus"/"agent" in the "control" cells and hence the CPE occurred - which is what Enders seems to have asserted.
This is why it's so important to point out the absence of valid, rigorous, repeatable scientific experiments showing the existence of "viruses". The onus is on those making the positive claim, which they cannot do. Lowering our standard of evidence would only backfire and aid the perps.
Not sure where Mia gets the idea that experiments testing for a causal relationship between quackcines and autism would involve forcing "some people to get vaccinated / remain unvaccinated" and hence "likely" couldn't be done. Is she somehow unaware that subjects voluntarily give informed consent to participate in an RCT? Strange that she would have such much knowledge but not be aware of this.
The establishment actually claims that it's unethical to conduct toxicology studies on people, and so instead they conduct toxicology experiments on animals that haven't and can't give informed consent - as if that somehow is ethical.
They also claim that it would be unethical to test certain products on pregnant women who give informed consent, so instead they leave pregnant women out of their controlled trials and then they market and administer those same products to pregnant women who become guinea pigs duped into thinking that the product was already proven "safe and effective" for them. Hence they effectively enroll pregnant women in uncontrolled experiments without their informed consent under false pretense, which is highly unethical and fraudulent.
"In quasi-experimental research, the independent variable is identified and its effects on the dependent variables measured" - one can measure the difference between the outcomes of experimental group and quasi-control group, but labelling this difference as the effect of the IV is an illogical leap.
"As I have tried to demonstrate above, applying that criteria would exclude most scientific research from being considered valuable. Moreover, we can find many examples of pseudoscientific experiments being considered valuable. This means, realistically speaking, that classifying something as pseudoscientific or not is not determinate or saying much at all. "
What some people "consider valuable" doesn't concern me. What concerns me is whether or not the evidence relied upon actually shows what it's purported to show.
"When determing how much value should be attributed to a particular experiment what should be considered is not whether the experiements fit into any definition or model but rather to what extent the variables have been accounted for and controlled and to what extent control experiments have been employed the for those variables not controlled." The whole point of the SM is to control and thereby eliminate confounding. If the SM was not applied yet sciency-sounding claims are being made (as in the Enders study), then there is a problem and this is important for people to realize. So why the dismissive attitude towards pointing this out?
"Observing tissues and cells under a microscope does not follow the scientific method at all. Yet it is still considered a scientific experiment."
People considering something scientific doesn't make it so.
"...labelling experiments as pseudoscientific or control experiments as not valid, valid, not proper, or proper is not really helpful or informative. This is because determining whether an experiment or control experiments is useful or valuable must be determined on a case by case basis..." Here Mia conflates the concept of validity with usefulness and value. And we can't always go into long drawn out descriptions of studies, hence words such as "pseudoscientific" and "invalid" are useful and important.
It's important to make a distinction between:
1) pointing out the flaws in research that is falsely passed off as proving the existence of a "virus" or proving something to be "safe and effective", and
2) pointing out research that suggests something might be causing harm and that caution is warranted and action should be taken.
A pseudoscientific claaim to knowledge is unproven, but presented as proven. Some uncontrolled experiment may produce some result someone wants to latch onto as conclusive, but the fact it is pseduoscientific, not supported by the scientific method properly applied, means the result is not conclusive.
"Labels" is a term used by people who seem to want to disparage precise thinking, as though the meaning of words were arbitrary or superficial, merely "Labels". The problem with today's science is that it is often not scientific at all. Words do have meaning, the meaning is important, and what various "scientists" believe to be "valuable" does not serve to advance discovery and truth. If a result of a pseudoscientific experiment produces a result Jones claims is "valuable", but a control experiment demonstrates the ressult is meaningless, then Jones was wrong.
Science is not a subjective method whereby people feel the value or sense the truth; it has to be objectiviely proven true. Pseudoscience cannot attain that end.
"What should instead be determinative is to what extent the variables have been accounted for and controlled in the context of that particular experiement." (sic)
Failing to control for potential confounders is not the only issue when it comes to studies being invalid and pseudoscientific. One can implement impeccable controls (which is only possible in virology if one uses purified particles found in "hosts" as the IV, which they never do), but still carry out an invalid pseudoscientific study.
For example, by injecting animals instead of exposing them in ways that reflect what is claimed to happen in nature. And by administering anesthetic prior to exposure. Or in a human trial, by administering remdesivir to the subjects, as was done in the idiotic "SARS-COV-2 human trial".
There are countless ways to invalidate a study, even with the best possible controls in place.
Thank you for doing this treatment of what is admittedly a very complex subject with many permutations. It makes an excellent companion piece to your other one on "Control Experiments and the Intention to Deceive." I sense you are trying to be scrupulously honest and precise which I greatly appreciate because I only want to know the truth about this subject.
Rockefeller's smoke and mirrors, selling viruses and contagion to Us in His schools, publishing, media, and "research" facilities.
Excellent piece! Thank You!
Well done!
Thank you Mia, this is very clear and concise information
Nice work!
Take a whole bunch of religious/spiritual groups, nature lovers, death cults, the corporate minded, scientist, individualists, social engineers, freedom takers, the super rich, truth seekers, technocratic freaks, and put them all on a ball spinning round and around an see who gets the dizziest fighting for their POV. There's an ongoing experiment.
Enjoyed the piece and the discussions and learned some things.
Excellent Mia!. Eagerly looking forward to your future posts.
Very very well said.
Polite, unbiased, objective, and realistic.
It reminds me of the trend in lawfare to write in "plain English" as opposed to confusing wordy salads.
Brilliant article.
Thank you (ALL) for your tireless effort/contribution to clear up all the rubble - one grain of lie-sand at a time - that has been accumulated over millennia by man and woman telling each other HALF-TRUTHS and then believing them wholeheartedly out of fear of becoming an outcast. Based on the trillions of HALF-TRUTHS man and woman were telling each other on a daily basis they ARE building a HOUSE OF LIES that now stares EVERYONE of us participating in this CIRCUS OF MADNESS in the face. Overcoming the fear of ostracisation/loosing all worldly reward is nothing to be underestimated and tempered with lightly.
Be wise like serpents and as gentle as doves. - THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
Let me leave a thought for everyone's consideration
" Notice that control experiments are defined by their function or purpose, namely, to determine the impact of certain variables on the results of the main experiment. "
The graphic that you are using already (FALSELY) insinuates/assumes that all factors that influence the plant CAN be known and on top of that that the factors we CONSIDER can be "controlled" in REALITY, without realising that the "controlling" only takes place in our mind, i.e. based on THE MODEL our mind has created how REALITY works.
And I am not saying this to condemn "control" experiments but solely in order to highlight my observation that we most of the time are getting lost in our mental model rather than looking at REALITY ITSELF. One simple contrary to easy - as it is really hard - approach is to admit "I ASSUME" contrary to "I KNOW". It's akin to "question everything that you believe to be REALITY in order to realise/admit what is made up by the mind and out of curiosity - like a little child - digging deeper and deeper, in all walks of LIFE, and as a result being HANDED better and better discernment by GOD ALMIGHTY./THE HOLY SPIRIT."
Which is what I believe to be the reason for this statement of THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:
31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Matt 12, 31-32
and
31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Jn 8, 31-32
(I wonder who does see that both quotes are from verses 31-32? - those who did not have displayed the blindness I was talking about above)
SOLI DEO GLORIA!
Great piece!
I would really prefer it if Mia not attempt to speak on behalf of the signatories of the “Settling the virus debate” challenge as I am one of those signatories and she was not involved in my decision to sign onto the challenge.
I signed onto the challenge b/c I expect that labs would fail to get consistent results and thus the results would show that the assumptions of virologists are wrong... not because I expect that the results would show that there could not be a "virus".
Quote from the actual challenge:
"If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses."
Showing that the virologists' claims are unfounded and showing that a "virus" could not be involved are not the same thing.
Mia asserts that Enders' research on the imaginary measles virus "amounts to a valid control experiment". A valid control experiment would require a valid IV to be manipulated such that the experimental group is exposed and the control group isn't. This would require the IV to have been identified in advance - purified particles suspected of being "the virus". Enders didn't have that, and so a valid experiment was not possible. Further, he did not describe having obtained purified particles for use in the "control" arm, or from the "control" arm, and thus his story about a “second agent obtained from an uninoculated kidney culture” is just that - a story. I try not to breath life into such an unproven story.
Having said that, there's a big difference between pointing out that an experiment or procedure is unscientific or invalid, and saying that is has no value. I don't know any no-virus people who claim that there is no value or purpose in implementing "controls" outside the context of a strictly scientific experiment.
Stefan Lanka's brilliant work has shown that the assumptions of virologists are faulty, and the value of this is immeasurable. I don't know any no-virus people who disregard his experiments or don't value them. To my knowledge, everyone has immense appreciation and respect for Dr. Lanka and his experiments, so I wonder why Mia implies that this is an issue among no-virus people.
At the same time, one should be careful about claiming that some cell culture "controls" "proved" that there is no "virus" involved. Virus-pushers can easily offer an unproven alternative explanation for the results: that there was an unexpected "virus"/"agent" in the "control" cells and hence the CPE occurred - which is what Enders seems to have asserted.
This is why it's so important to point out the absence of valid, rigorous, repeatable scientific experiments showing the existence of "viruses". The onus is on those making the positive claim, which they cannot do. Lowering our standard of evidence would only backfire and aid the perps.
Not sure where Mia gets the idea that experiments testing for a causal relationship between quackcines and autism would involve forcing "some people to get vaccinated / remain unvaccinated" and hence "likely" couldn't be done. Is she somehow unaware that subjects voluntarily give informed consent to participate in an RCT? Strange that she would have such much knowledge but not be aware of this.
The establishment actually claims that it's unethical to conduct toxicology studies on people, and so instead they conduct toxicology experiments on animals that haven't and can't give informed consent - as if that somehow is ethical.
They also claim that it would be unethical to test certain products on pregnant women who give informed consent, so instead they leave pregnant women out of their controlled trials and then they market and administer those same products to pregnant women who become guinea pigs duped into thinking that the product was already proven "safe and effective" for them. Hence they effectively enroll pregnant women in uncontrolled experiments without their informed consent under false pretense, which is highly unethical and fraudulent.
"In quasi-experimental research, the independent variable is identified and its effects on the dependent variables measured" - one can measure the difference between the outcomes of experimental group and quasi-control group, but labelling this difference as the effect of the IV is an illogical leap.
"As I have tried to demonstrate above, applying that criteria would exclude most scientific research from being considered valuable. Moreover, we can find many examples of pseudoscientific experiments being considered valuable. This means, realistically speaking, that classifying something as pseudoscientific or not is not determinate or saying much at all. "
What some people "consider valuable" doesn't concern me. What concerns me is whether or not the evidence relied upon actually shows what it's purported to show.
"When determing how much value should be attributed to a particular experiment what should be considered is not whether the experiements fit into any definition or model but rather to what extent the variables have been accounted for and controlled and to what extent control experiments have been employed the for those variables not controlled." The whole point of the SM is to control and thereby eliminate confounding. If the SM was not applied yet sciency-sounding claims are being made (as in the Enders study), then there is a problem and this is important for people to realize. So why the dismissive attitude towards pointing this out?
"Observing tissues and cells under a microscope does not follow the scientific method at all. Yet it is still considered a scientific experiment."
People considering something scientific doesn't make it so.
"...labelling experiments as pseudoscientific or control experiments as not valid, valid, not proper, or proper is not really helpful or informative. This is because determining whether an experiment or control experiments is useful or valuable must be determined on a case by case basis..." Here Mia conflates the concept of validity with usefulness and value. And we can't always go into long drawn out descriptions of studies, hence words such as "pseudoscientific" and "invalid" are useful and important.
It's important to make a distinction between:
1) pointing out the flaws in research that is falsely passed off as proving the existence of a "virus" or proving something to be "safe and effective", and
2) pointing out research that suggests something might be causing harm and that caution is warranted and action should be taken.
A pseudoscientific claaim to knowledge is unproven, but presented as proven. Some uncontrolled experiment may produce some result someone wants to latch onto as conclusive, but the fact it is pseduoscientific, not supported by the scientific method properly applied, means the result is not conclusive.
"Labels" is a term used by people who seem to want to disparage precise thinking, as though the meaning of words were arbitrary or superficial, merely "Labels". The problem with today's science is that it is often not scientific at all. Words do have meaning, the meaning is important, and what various "scientists" believe to be "valuable" does not serve to advance discovery and truth. If a result of a pseudoscientific experiment produces a result Jones claims is "valuable", but a control experiment demonstrates the ressult is meaningless, then Jones was wrong.
Science is not a subjective method whereby people feel the value or sense the truth; it has to be objectiviely proven true. Pseudoscience cannot attain that end.
"What should instead be determinative is to what extent the variables have been accounted for and controlled in the context of that particular experiement." (sic)
Failing to control for potential confounders is not the only issue when it comes to studies being invalid and pseudoscientific. One can implement impeccable controls (which is only possible in virology if one uses purified particles found in "hosts" as the IV, which they never do), but still carry out an invalid pseudoscientific study.
For example, by injecting animals instead of exposing them in ways that reflect what is claimed to happen in nature. And by administering anesthetic prior to exposure. Or in a human trial, by administering remdesivir to the subjects, as was done in the idiotic "SARS-COV-2 human trial".
There are countless ways to invalidate a study, even with the best possible controls in place.