HighWire Pushed Off YouTube
Guilt, Anger, Economic Freedom, Non-Bravery? Government Testing at Yale on Covid Shot Messaging

Forbes Tells Readers Not To Worry Their Pretty Little Heads About Science

Dont try this at homeGinger Taylor summed up this nonsensical, anti-science, anti-health, patronizing, condescending, anti-American article from Forbes. Forbes, a financial magazine, does not want you to read science. You should get your science from Forbes, a financial magazine. (This message brought to you by GSK, which sponsors Forbes, a financial magazine.)  This article is part of the frightening trend toward sanctioned, mandated obeisance and ignorance of facts that is the new America -  36 years after it was predicted by Orwell.

You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science

By Ethan Seigel "I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, 518E0172-4B49-4E39-BA01-077BB5997720 author, and science communicator, who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerous awards for science writing since 2008 for my blog, Starts With A Bang, including the award for best science blog by the Institute of Physics. My two books, Treknology: The Science of Star Trek from Tricorders to Warp Drive, Beyond the Galaxy: How humanity looked beyond our Milky Way and discovered the entire Universe, are available for purchase at Amazon. Follow me on Twitter @startswithabang"

“Research both sides and make up your own mind.” It’s simple, straightforward, common sense advice. And when it comes to issues like vaccinations, climate change, and the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it can be dangerous, destructive, and even deadly. The techniques that most of us use to navigate most of our decisions in life — gathering information, evaluating it based on what we know, and choosing a course of action — can lead to spectacular failures when it comes to a scientific matter.

The reason is simple: most of us, even those of us who are scientists ourselves, lack the relevant scientific expertise needed to adequately evaluate that research on our own. In our own fields, we are aware of the full suite of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit together, and what the frontiers of our knowledge is. When laypersons espouse opinions on those matters, it’s immediately clear to us where the gaps in their understanding are and where they’ve misled themselves in their reasoning.... You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science




I was listening to a radio program this morning and heard the name Dr. Richard Bartlett mentioned. The radio show's host mentioned she had viewed Dr. Bartlett's interview on a program in Texas called AMERICA CAN WE TALK. She could not stress enough how important it was for folks to watch this interview and to pass it along to all they know.

I just started viewing; have to say, I am extremely impressed, so much so that I am sending this link to all those I can and am asking folks to do the same.

This show was downloaded on July 15, 2020; thus far, it's had 52,434 views. Please watch before it, too, probably gets pullled due to censorship.

Cannot say enough good things about both men who are interviewed here -- Drs. Richard Bartlett and Ralph Abraham (who is also a Congressman).



Breathtaking ignorance. I don't even know where to start, so I won't.

Tim Lundeen

@pft -- well said, and I agree! But some of the examples of "snake oil salesmen, witch doctors and ambulance chasing lawyers" have just gotten a bad rep through propaganda.

Snake oil -- an excellent source of the omega-3 fatty acid EPA, which is anti-inflammatory. Chinese traditional medicine uses snake oil to help with inflammation. So allopathic medicine had to destroy its reputation.

Witch doctors I don't know much about, but in the middle ages "witches" were the natural healers, using herbs, helping women birth, nursing the sick. They were killed off by the millions to make allopathic medicine the only option -- there is an excellent short book, Witches, Midwives and Nurses: A History of Women Healers.

Ambulance chasing lawyers help make sure that products get safer, because large damage settlements are a strong inducement to reduce accident rates: so they benefit us all in the long run. Note that the main problem with vaccines today is that we can't sue the system that gives them: if we had lots of "vaccine injury chasers" you can be sure vaccines would be a lot safer today.

go Trump

Has everyone met the oxycontin / Sacklers ?

They were in Forbes a few months back.



Interesting that on NBC nightly news GAVI's Seth Berkley said that if just 20% of world's population was vaccinated with whatever, that would "brake the back" of the virus. One might interpret that braking the back of the virus is achieving "herd immunity threshold" which is what the recent JB Handley article has also posited. 20% and Farr's Law applies.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news-netcast/video/nightly-news-full-broadcast-july-31st-89377349826 at the last part of the broadcast around 15 to 17 minutes



lay down with dogs, get fleas
lay down with Forbes, get leeches.


Most of what we do is analyze the data. Forbes does this with economics. Economics is a science also requiring expertise, but us laymen can understand stuff like unemployment rates and CPI and GDP and make up our minds as to if the data passes the smell test and if its being hedonistically manipulated like CPI excluding beef price increases if chicken prices stay the same (we can eat chicken) or if they say that 10% increase in car prices is because of improvements in areas we could care less about and thus claim no increase, etc.

Most scientific studies we read contain data from experiments and we can see if the experiments appear reasonable, and what the samples size is. Many are comparing one group to another group, and we can see if both groups are comparable and how the results compare, even if we do not fully understand the underlying science

One thing I have learned is science that can be clearly explained without being overly simplistic and quantified is good science. Fuzzy science that lacks quantification, or compares apples and oranges and is mostly unclear is bad science

HCQ and mask studies . In HCQ studies denying an effect they use way too high dosages (toxic), the control groups are healthier than the HCQ group, or both groups are too sick to get an effect, or the control group gets an expensive SOC treatment which has comparable result to the much cheaper/safer HCQ, and in one Lancet study the data was fictitious (fraudulent) and the author was affiliated with a hospital with an interest in Gileads drug.

For masks, there are virtually no safety studies on prolonged use and most studies show no significant effect on preventing transmission, yet some scientists want us to believe the science is settled (safe and effective)

I wont even bother with the test validation and blatant data manipulation by CDC changing how cause of death is determined, case definition changes, mixing pcr and antibody tests for new cases, calling asymptomatic positives COVID cases , etc

Frankly, science has proven itself to be so corrupt and financially conflicted they should treated with as much respect as snake oil salesmen, witch doctors and ambulance chasing lawyers. Not that there aren't good scientists but the bad scientists get the money and media attention.

John Stone

And actually a lot of this is to do with laziness and cowardice of scientists who were just prepared to take things on trust from colleagues when there was patently something wrong - studies which didn’t stand up because they were poorly designed and executed, had anomalous results etc etc. Piles and piles of such studies. Why was it not possible to conduct timely appropriate studies? Ah well, we can now all ‘take the knee‘ to Fauci, Collins, Boyle, DeStefano, Thorsen, Lipkin, Frieden, Fombonne etc etc. They may not have been great scientists but they certainly knew how to keep their jobs.


So moving. I feel he has some control for my variable.


She Blinded Me With Science.

Jenny Allan

"Ethan Seigel "I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, 518E0172-4B49-4E39-BA01-077BB5997720author, and science communicator, who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges."
Well-bully for him! -but what makes him think he is an expert on such issues as vaccines and pharmaceuticals?

'Trust me I'm a scientist'. ( No way!!) ' The science is settled.' ( Real scientists would NEVER claim this.) 'Listen to the experts.' ( What experts!!? -NONE with Covid-19, said to be a 'novel' virus; who knows how it might behave in future?)

I wouldn't dream of calling myself a 'scientist'. I reserve that term for persons prepared to stand up for their research in the face of ridicule, loss of their professions and even livelihoods. Dr Wakefield is only one of many such brave scientists. There was NEVER anything wrong, unethical or fraudulent about his work. If only they had listened to him more than 20 years ago, when autism and bowel problems were very rare in children.

My scientific training did at least teach me to think logically, but most persons are perfectly capable of separating the good stuff from the cr-p. My training in statistics, (once a compulsory part of every UK science degree), taught me how easy this was to 'fiddle', and that was before you could get a 'standard deviation' at the click of a mouse. Another click or two and a few tweaks and you can get the result you want. If that doesn't fool them, then simply present utter failures as wonderful successes. We are now getting this nonsence with the Covid-19 vaccine trials. 'Perfectly safe; a mere 70% of vaccine trial volunteers got fever, nausea and headaches , but paracetamol fixed it. (Well, at least we assume so). Those vaccinated monkeys may have still got infected with Covid-19, but they didn't get lung complications. Does that prove anything about likelihood of the human lung complications after vaccinations? .....er NO!!

This self satisfied, patronising geek, can take his advice up on a spaceship to Mars - or anywhere- preferably somewhere very remote where he can observe the stars.


I majored in science.
I have two masters in it.
I worked in research.
I worked teaching it.

She is talking down to me too. Yes LOL, Ding bat We both must leave it to just certain scientists, those with jobs in our federal agencies and just at the top CEOs of Merck.


Oh my goodness! Thank God somebody finally explained all this to me! Science-ing is HARD!
All those graphs and charts and numbers just make me dizzy. No wonder my doctor gets all his medical information from the drug reps in the waiting room!
What a relief to know I don't have to think about any of this anymore. I'm gonna go drink a nice cool glass of tap water and polish my nails.

Bob Moffit

"If we listen to the science, we can attempt to take the best path possible forward through the greatest challenges facing modern society"

"Science" is only as trustworthy as the "scientist" who promotes it .. and .. far too many "scientists" have personal conflicts of interests that benefit THEM rather than the people who rely upon them.

Perhaps it would help if this genius defined what qualifies as SCIENCE? Are pharmaceutical companies selling PRODUCTS .. like vaccines … scientists? Or are they simply snake-oil salesmen selling a PRODUCT that is UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE .. by manipulating "science" to serve THEIR BEST INTERESTS??


Consider: Who is a better qualified "scientist"to decide if Hydrochoroquine is SAFE AND EFFECTIVE .. the numerous doctors actually treating their patients and witnessing first hand the success of that particular treatment .. or .. a public health "scientist" like Fauci who has NEVER actually treated a patients with covid????

The question is WHY???? What possible reason would so many "scientists" seek to DENY using that drug reported by so many "scientists" to be LIFE SAVING????

That is what passes as 'SCIENCE" today.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)