Thank you, Jeff, for the detailed examination of Jamie's latest debacle.
It was disappointing to see the most-liked comment (30 likes) was "So in layman's terms so far, they make all this shit up.". I contributed a lengthy comment on noise in analytical measurements and the necessity to compensate for the noise. I got one like. I'm seeing the idea that "scientists just make shit up" shared frequently. I wonder if Tom Cowan's misquote of Einstein has gone viral, so to speak. Einstein said: "If, then, it is the case that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be an inference from experience, but must be free invention, have we any right to hope that we shall find the correct way?". And Cowan says Einstein meant "From now on science can just make shit up."
I've objected to Cowan's misquote every time I see it. I've never had anyone respond back but I'm usually voted down.
I just seen your comment about noise. Jamie dismissed your comment, as usual, even though what you wrote is absolutely correct. Jamie has zero evidence researchers reject data to suit some ulterior motive. That is a nonsensical statement and shows he has zero knowledge of any of the tools he calls into question. As you wrote, noise is part of literally every system, whether that is a telescope, microscope, audio, photography, or whatever it might be. Just wow...
I just listened to Jamie's interview on the Wise Traditions podcast (Weston A. Price Foundation). In the introduction the presenter says "In tandem with 100 researchers, health practitioners, seasoned microbiologists, and geneticists, Jamie is seeking to get to the bottom of the existence of viruses and blow the lid off of our current understanding of virology." So that sounds pretty impressive. Jamie didn't mention denying DNA and genetics during the interview. I had to laugh when Jamie said "I welcome with this project people’s logical and inquisitive mind." He obviously has no regard for advice from those who have far more extensive knowledge and experience.
Jamie repeated his claim I've heard before that microbiologists and geneticists routinely adjust methodologies to get the expected results. The podcast transcript even highlights this statement: "If what the scientists are doing fails, they don’t see that as a failed experiment. They change something to get the results they need to get, and most people don’t see that as bad science."
Right, because science doesn't just throw its hands up when an experiment fails, giving up. It attempts it again in another way until something substantial arises—either something expected, or unexpected. What, you're just supposed to give up as soon as your experiment fails? When is Jamie going to give up with his failed experiment then?
The Weston A. Price foundation is run now mostly by Sally Fallon, who is, as far as I know, a No-Virus member. The whole, "They're just manipulating the results to get what they want!" is directly out of the No-Virus playbook. If that's what they're doing, then that means every scientist in the world is lying in lock step with one another, including independent scientists and researchers who can also verify results obtained from other scientists.
Question: Why can't these people put their trust in other people who have knowledge of the science and stop pretending to know more than they do, while claiming all of these researchers and scientists are intentional frauds and liars? Jamie can barely string a proper sentence together in the English language, so why, exactly, should I listen to him? If they don't understand something, it becomes a conspiracy. If they don't grasp the science, it becomes a fraud, etc.
Jamie also says, regarding PCR, "All of these Biochemical indications are rubbish and amount to no much more than tea leaf readings with a great story to go with."
Elsewhere he says: "I am not sure they are measuring anything more than tenuous Biochemical indications. They put a flourescent marker into a sample knowingly... then measure how much it Flouresces...and then make up a huge story around how that fluorescent marker means it is attached to dna, which is the building blocks of life... all massive assumptions that have zero evidence."
Then someone mentioned that a simple acid-base titration might be a good way to think about PCR (How??). Jamie responded "Interesting. Yes if we could perform lots of PCR controls using this titration it would definitely uncover a lot. I get the feeling it is "Charge" based so would tie into pH as you allude to."
It's all just bonkers. Even so, one commenter said Jamie deserves the Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking No-Virus work.
It’s unbelievable that no one within his own circle questions what he’s saying. Does he not understand that nucleotides have been photographed? Is he completely unaware that we have actual photographs of whole DNA strands? I’d like to hear how he explains heredity or how traits like eye and hair color are passed on. To believe this nonsense requires a complete break from reality. We’ve reached a point where calling out such absurdities is labeled as "negative." Well, if that’s the case, then call me negative, because these people are absolutely delusional.
How do you fund PCR testing if you believe DNA doesn't even exist? Hello? It's just asinine at this stage. One contradiction after the next whilst this moron attacks anyone who honestly questions his obvious nonsense.
I just posted a new article on the latest claim about nanobots in vaccines. Maybe you can comment on it and share some of your own knowledge on the matter, if any.
I believe Cowan is tapping into an already prevalent attitude within his community—a deep distrust of science and its practitioners. By offering a platform for the most extreme members of his audience to express their anti-science rhetoric without any moderation, he’s exacerbating the issue.
His claims about Einstein are outright fabrications. Einstein never uttered the things Cowan attributes to him, and Cowan is deliberately twisting Einstein’s words. Why? I suspect it’s because Cowan wants to convince his audience that science is nothing more than fabricated nonsense, equating it to mere opinion. This is in stark contrast to the reality that science is grounded in the scientific method, supported by intellectual reasoning, deduction, induction, and various other forms of verification of hypotheses. Cowan’s aim seems to be fostering extreme doubt in most all forms of science, so he can step in and offer his version of “truth,” drawing gullible people into his narrative. He also often argues that we can't prove a negative, which is false, though that is a deeper discussion.
Simply listen to the man—he's clearly out of his mind. And he says it all with a smile on his face. It's like he's merely cosplaying as a researcher and scientist, as nothing more than a side hobby, and not as a serious pursuit of knowledge.
As we discussed before, Einstein was conveying in his quote that theoretical physics is such that one must open their mind to possibilities unseen—that one must be creative in their approach to ultimately determine the truth of the unknown, but that that approach should be governed by the basic fundamental laws that govern all of science, and in turn, the reality of nature. And as such, that those creative ideas are then verified through the scientific method before being called legitimate.
A few months ago the Weston Price Foundation posted this: "Dr. Tom Cowan considers fruit to be an overrated food, and advises that we consume seasonal fruit in small quantities. He advises the avoidance of any diet that emphasizes an increase of fruit or fruit products, which would include homemade juices; a source of concentrated fructose."
I responded: "Dr. Cowan is one of the last people I'd rely on for any advice on nutrition or health. He has gradually become a contrarian regarding the most fundamental science and has little useful to offer anymore. Best avoided!!"
WAPF responded: "Dr. Cowan has been a board member from our inception and has served as our Vice President for several years. If you consider him to be a contrarian re: the most fundamental science, you would likely view us in that way as well. He is featured in our Wise Traditions journal, podcast and conference every year and reflects most of our positions."
Even though Sally Fallon Morrell has come out against flat earth she is apparently on board with whatever wild flights of destructive fancy Tom Cowan chooses to dream up. I noticed their podcast host is breathlessly anticipating Dr. Cowan giving key presentations at their October conference.
As you say, Dr. Cowan is not a researcher. A few weeks ago when he was dismissing nuclear weapons as a hoax he referenced one book and a very old Reader's Digest article which he "took at face value".
His claim about fruit is only a half-truth. It's not that fruit itself is overrated—it's the way it's consumed that makes all the difference. Many raw fruits should be part of a healthy diet, and there are plenty of fruits that have less sugar in them that one can eat more of and be perfectly fine. A distinction should be made between overly ripe, highly sweet fruits, and more moderately sweet fruits.
Constantly eating large amounts of highly sweet fruit in a short time, especially on its own, can lead to a range of imbalances. Even though the sugar is natural, it can still cause blood glucose level spikes that can lead to long-term damage and affect mood. For instance, people who eat 30 bananas a day and little else are essentially surviving on sugar, with minimal protein and likely no healthy fats. I've seen many of those people who sustain such a diet end up in a hospital with an IV because they were starving themselves and didn't realize it until it was too late.
If one does eat more fruit, I recommend sipping raw milk or combining some other fat with the fruit (butter, cream, cheese), or limiting intake of fruit to 2-3 pieces spread throughout the day between full meals. Just a sip of whole raw milk is enough to help buffer and slow the digestion of sugar in fruit. I personally eat fruit every day, but I eat it as I have outlined here. My experiments proved to me that sweeter fruit should be consumed with a small portion of fat to help slow sugar metabolism.
Fruit juices should be consumed more sparingly, as they lack the fiber to slow sugar digestion, causing it to enter the bloodstream too quickly, leading to imbalances.
Cowan's black-and-white stance only applies to someone who binges on fruit and fruit juices. The truth is that raw fruit and small amounts of raw fruit juices are part of a healthy diet, but only when eaten in moderation and paired with a diet rich in protein and fat to help buffer and slow sugar metabolism.
It would have helped if actual nutritional science was used to substantiate his claims, just as I have laid out here with what I have written. I suspect most of his nutritional claims is taken from actual nutritionists who did actually employ science in their reasonings, and that this statement of his is much like the Einstein quote, where he took something out of context.
Thank you, Jeff, for the detailed examination of Jamie's latest debacle.
It was disappointing to see the most-liked comment (30 likes) was "So in layman's terms so far, they make all this shit up.". I contributed a lengthy comment on noise in analytical measurements and the necessity to compensate for the noise. I got one like. I'm seeing the idea that "scientists just make shit up" shared frequently. I wonder if Tom Cowan's misquote of Einstein has gone viral, so to speak. Einstein said: "If, then, it is the case that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be an inference from experience, but must be free invention, have we any right to hope that we shall find the correct way?". And Cowan says Einstein meant "From now on science can just make shit up."
I've objected to Cowan's misquote every time I see it. I've never had anyone respond back but I'm usually voted down.
I just seen your comment about noise. Jamie dismissed your comment, as usual, even though what you wrote is absolutely correct. Jamie has zero evidence researchers reject data to suit some ulterior motive. That is a nonsensical statement and shows he has zero knowledge of any of the tools he calls into question. As you wrote, noise is part of literally every system, whether that is a telescope, microscope, audio, photography, or whatever it might be. Just wow...
I just listened to Jamie's interview on the Wise Traditions podcast (Weston A. Price Foundation). In the introduction the presenter says "In tandem with 100 researchers, health practitioners, seasoned microbiologists, and geneticists, Jamie is seeking to get to the bottom of the existence of viruses and blow the lid off of our current understanding of virology." So that sounds pretty impressive. Jamie didn't mention denying DNA and genetics during the interview. I had to laugh when Jamie said "I welcome with this project people’s logical and inquisitive mind." He obviously has no regard for advice from those who have far more extensive knowledge and experience.
Jamie repeated his claim I've heard before that microbiologists and geneticists routinely adjust methodologies to get the expected results. The podcast transcript even highlights this statement: "If what the scientists are doing fails, they don’t see that as a failed experiment. They change something to get the results they need to get, and most people don’t see that as bad science."
Right, because science doesn't just throw its hands up when an experiment fails, giving up. It attempts it again in another way until something substantial arises—either something expected, or unexpected. What, you're just supposed to give up as soon as your experiment fails? When is Jamie going to give up with his failed experiment then?
The Weston A. Price foundation is run now mostly by Sally Fallon, who is, as far as I know, a No-Virus member. The whole, "They're just manipulating the results to get what they want!" is directly out of the No-Virus playbook. If that's what they're doing, then that means every scientist in the world is lying in lock step with one another, including independent scientists and researchers who can also verify results obtained from other scientists.
Question: Why can't these people put their trust in other people who have knowledge of the science and stop pretending to know more than they do, while claiming all of these researchers and scientists are intentional frauds and liars? Jamie can barely string a proper sentence together in the English language, so why, exactly, should I listen to him? If they don't understand something, it becomes a conspiracy. If they don't grasp the science, it becomes a fraud, etc.
Marty, did you read this insane comment?
https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/pcr-controls/comment/67695870
Yes, no-virus, no-DNA, no-genetics.
Jamie also says, regarding PCR, "All of these Biochemical indications are rubbish and amount to no much more than tea leaf readings with a great story to go with."
Elsewhere he says: "I am not sure they are measuring anything more than tenuous Biochemical indications. They put a flourescent marker into a sample knowingly... then measure how much it Flouresces...and then make up a huge story around how that fluorescent marker means it is attached to dna, which is the building blocks of life... all massive assumptions that have zero evidence."
Then someone mentioned that a simple acid-base titration might be a good way to think about PCR (How??). Jamie responded "Interesting. Yes if we could perform lots of PCR controls using this titration it would definitely uncover a lot. I get the feeling it is "Charge" based so would tie into pH as you allude to."
It's all just bonkers. Even so, one commenter said Jamie deserves the Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking No-Virus work.
It’s unbelievable that no one within his own circle questions what he’s saying. Does he not understand that nucleotides have been photographed? Is he completely unaware that we have actual photographs of whole DNA strands? I’d like to hear how he explains heredity or how traits like eye and hair color are passed on. To believe this nonsense requires a complete break from reality. We’ve reached a point where calling out such absurdities is labeled as "negative." Well, if that’s the case, then call me negative, because these people are absolutely delusional.
How do you fund PCR testing if you believe DNA doesn't even exist? Hello? It's just asinine at this stage. One contradiction after the next whilst this moron attacks anyone who honestly questions his obvious nonsense.
I just posted a new article on the latest claim about nanobots in vaccines. Maybe you can comment on it and share some of your own knowledge on the matter, if any.
I believe Cowan is tapping into an already prevalent attitude within his community—a deep distrust of science and its practitioners. By offering a platform for the most extreme members of his audience to express their anti-science rhetoric without any moderation, he’s exacerbating the issue.
His claims about Einstein are outright fabrications. Einstein never uttered the things Cowan attributes to him, and Cowan is deliberately twisting Einstein’s words. Why? I suspect it’s because Cowan wants to convince his audience that science is nothing more than fabricated nonsense, equating it to mere opinion. This is in stark contrast to the reality that science is grounded in the scientific method, supported by intellectual reasoning, deduction, induction, and various other forms of verification of hypotheses. Cowan’s aim seems to be fostering extreme doubt in most all forms of science, so he can step in and offer his version of “truth,” drawing gullible people into his narrative. He also often argues that we can't prove a negative, which is false, though that is a deeper discussion.
Simply listen to the man—he's clearly out of his mind. And he says it all with a smile on his face. It's like he's merely cosplaying as a researcher and scientist, as nothing more than a side hobby, and not as a serious pursuit of knowledge.
As we discussed before, Einstein was conveying in his quote that theoretical physics is such that one must open their mind to possibilities unseen—that one must be creative in their approach to ultimately determine the truth of the unknown, but that that approach should be governed by the basic fundamental laws that govern all of science, and in turn, the reality of nature. And as such, that those creative ideas are then verified through the scientific method before being called legitimate.
A few months ago the Weston Price Foundation posted this: "Dr. Tom Cowan considers fruit to be an overrated food, and advises that we consume seasonal fruit in small quantities. He advises the avoidance of any diet that emphasizes an increase of fruit or fruit products, which would include homemade juices; a source of concentrated fructose."
I responded: "Dr. Cowan is one of the last people I'd rely on for any advice on nutrition or health. He has gradually become a contrarian regarding the most fundamental science and has little useful to offer anymore. Best avoided!!"
WAPF responded: "Dr. Cowan has been a board member from our inception and has served as our Vice President for several years. If you consider him to be a contrarian re: the most fundamental science, you would likely view us in that way as well. He is featured in our Wise Traditions journal, podcast and conference every year and reflects most of our positions."
Even though Sally Fallon Morrell has come out against flat earth she is apparently on board with whatever wild flights of destructive fancy Tom Cowan chooses to dream up. I noticed their podcast host is breathlessly anticipating Dr. Cowan giving key presentations at their October conference.
As you say, Dr. Cowan is not a researcher. A few weeks ago when he was dismissing nuclear weapons as a hoax he referenced one book and a very old Reader's Digest article which he "took at face value".
His claim about fruit is only a half-truth. It's not that fruit itself is overrated—it's the way it's consumed that makes all the difference. Many raw fruits should be part of a healthy diet, and there are plenty of fruits that have less sugar in them that one can eat more of and be perfectly fine. A distinction should be made between overly ripe, highly sweet fruits, and more moderately sweet fruits.
Constantly eating large amounts of highly sweet fruit in a short time, especially on its own, can lead to a range of imbalances. Even though the sugar is natural, it can still cause blood glucose level spikes that can lead to long-term damage and affect mood. For instance, people who eat 30 bananas a day and little else are essentially surviving on sugar, with minimal protein and likely no healthy fats. I've seen many of those people who sustain such a diet end up in a hospital with an IV because they were starving themselves and didn't realize it until it was too late.
If one does eat more fruit, I recommend sipping raw milk or combining some other fat with the fruit (butter, cream, cheese), or limiting intake of fruit to 2-3 pieces spread throughout the day between full meals. Just a sip of whole raw milk is enough to help buffer and slow the digestion of sugar in fruit. I personally eat fruit every day, but I eat it as I have outlined here. My experiments proved to me that sweeter fruit should be consumed with a small portion of fat to help slow sugar metabolism.
Fruit juices should be consumed more sparingly, as they lack the fiber to slow sugar digestion, causing it to enter the bloodstream too quickly, leading to imbalances.
Cowan's black-and-white stance only applies to someone who binges on fruit and fruit juices. The truth is that raw fruit and small amounts of raw fruit juices are part of a healthy diet, but only when eaten in moderation and paired with a diet rich in protein and fat to help buffer and slow sugar metabolism.
It would have helped if actual nutritional science was used to substantiate his claims, just as I have laid out here with what I have written. I suspect most of his nutritional claims is taken from actual nutritionists who did actually employ science in their reasonings, and that this statement of his is much like the Einstein quote, where he took something out of context.