Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tom Starkweather's avatar

In the wild times we are in, I try to keep an open mind and I'm a skeptic at heart. The snake venom thing and Stew are questionable. My gut says something is off. I saw "Died Suddenly" as well. It feels like absurd ideas are being planted to ultimately discredit a point of view apart from the narrative.

Expand full comment
MClark's avatar

My question is whether there was a highlight on nAChRs issues at a mass level prior to the snake venom theory. The tragedy of our expending so much effort fighting backwards to assign culpability and the trace the origin story — which are needed pursuits — is that too much energy and focus is self assigned there. You have spoken passionately about getting on with solutions Jennifer. The corruption of the data and massive underreporting, together with the failure to develop case histories and linked syndromic data for all cases is an unbearable and persistent tragedy. We need big data done well — as many in academic medicine postulated to characterize and associate syndromic features, organ - cell - vessel - tissue states etc that correspond to these features, maps of the pathways, AND THERAPIES characterized by effect in population in setting, etc. The phrase Learning Healthcare System was intended to encompass big data and exquisite classification and categorization that could evolve and rapidly update. If there was ever an application for AI and deep learning, it is here and now. I am led to conclude that the whole movement in medicine wasn’t much more than smoke and mirrors for generations of grants. I did see Dr Bruce Patterson do some high class work early to define some types of Long Covid and a verifiable therapy set. So I am sure it’s being done, but this discovery should be at a Marshall Plan Level and involve personalized medicine approaches as well as mass data mining. Yet, we keep chasing these weasels at NIH. We need Congress and our leaders to move forward on curatives and the mechanisms of curatives associated w pathophysiology Of all the potential disease states coming out of the hugely varied bioweapon implantations. For my part and on this Ardis note — I wonder whether just establishing a classification beachhead OF NOTORIETY (important notoriety) is an accomplishment. It’s way easier to have helpful disputation and dialectic discovery around a raging bonfire than a candle in the wind. I am deeply appreciative of Jennifer’s work and gravitas — but there is a railroad to success running through public imagination, even misconceptions that rallied the masses. And frankly, I research citation abuse in the literature and it is rampant. You can see frequent references where the whole paper is cited in some confused way and the time it takes to see what the citation pointed at and what the actual evidential basis was is like the valley of futility. Sometimes there are strings of citations in controversial areas where it’s 4 layers till you get to the original assertion - X cited Y for concept 1 BUT Y is actually citing Z for concept 1 — then it turns out that each author in the line spun or shaded the data. The garbage science scholarship that was put out in the plandemic had a long history starting w the corruption of journals and the loss of the very precise citation style — eg down to the paragraph and sentences on the exact page. Even the Point of Care compendiums U2D make it hard to find which of 3 possible trials referenced produced the evidence backing recommendations — so the physicians users can eyeball the methods without spending 30 minutes tracing papers. So Ardis can maybe improve — but take a look at Citations of the Venerables before we kill a guy trying to start a bonfire. His model name even if it is in error draw out necessary challengers to advance the discussion— and it may even be that scientists of Jennifer’s caliber will add clarification, redefinition, and relational associations as needed.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts