Don’t Blindly Follow ‘The Science’, Rather Lead Humbly with Science
I am pleased to see the US House of Representatives bring experienced physicians to Capitol Hill who have seen patients face to face throughout the pandemic
Original observations from the bedside, exam room, and laboratory have proved to be invaluable in understanding the real impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and genetic COVID-19 vaccination.
In this substack we feature internist, Dr. Jordan Vaughn.
Dr. Jordan Vaughn is the Founder and President of the Microvascular Research Foundation, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to developing effective, research-based treatment protocols for patients suffering from long COVID.
Dr. Vaughn also co-hosts a weekly podcast with Dr. Stewart Tankersley on America Out Loud. Past episodes of their podcast, Pulse, can be found here.
Session Witnesses:
- Dr. Philip Krause, MD, former Deputy Director, FDA Office of Vaccines Research & Review – testimony
- Aaron Siri, JD, Vaccine litigation expert – testimony
- Jordan Vaughn, MD, Internal Medicine, Birmingham, Founder and President of Microvascular Research Foundation- testimony
- Andrew Tobias Pavia MD, FAAP, FACP, FIDSA, FSHEA, Chief, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor, Department of Pediatrics University of Utah School of Medicine – testimony
“The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust will hold a hearing on Wednesday, June 26, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET.
The hearing, “Follow the Science?: Oversight of the Biden Covid-19 Administrative State Response,” will discuss the Subcommittee’s oversight that found how the Biden Administration pressured the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to “cut corners” and lower agency standards to approve the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and authorize boosters.
This approval enabled the Biden administration to mandate the vaccine, despite concerns that the vaccine was causing injury among otherwise healthy young Americans.
Congress needs to address reforms to the administrative state to bring accountability to its agencies, particularly when it comes to the process of approving vaccines.”
Listen to Vaughn’s prepared remarks delivered on June 26, 2024 for lawmakers at the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep Jim Jordan.
The session was aptly titled: “Follow the Science: Oversight of the Biden COVID-19 Administrative State Response”
His closer was a remarkable positioning of “science”—a world slung around Washington in the pandemic hubris of government agencies, White House Coronavirus Task Force, and Presidential Advisor, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
None of whom could be considered a leader or humble.
See more here substack.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Wisenox
| #
“Science” is blind, no pun intended.
As an update to my number theory babble, it turns out I was looking at a torus, from the inside. Probably explains why phi appeared to pull pi off course.
Pretty interesting stuff. Imagine 1/4 circle with spaced lines projecting. If you take a 0.5 line, you start down a 1/7 line that creates Pi. 1/7=0.571428, and the 1st 3 out are 1.57, 3.14, and 6.28 at the 1, 2, 4 respectively. Travel 38.3 degrees and you bump into a phi line, which has corresponding points of 3.09 for 2 and 6.18 for 4. So, travel the right arrangement and you create a platonic solid, take a left turn at Albuquerque and you might make a circle. This then loops, with each successive turn adding to the repeating decimal irrational number; possibly. Also, maybe Riemann’s 1/2 is a tangent and the critical line is the balance where they zero out?
Last, during my chase for 741, I encountered missing information. Specifically, the difference between 1/7 and Pi. I found it in the data, but it’s reversed because I chose to go inside the mirror. I need 0.307307307 to be 3.703703703. How do I get to the other side? Are the missing informations held in zero?
Reply
Wisenox
| #
So, I found the megalithic yard in the data. It’s the proper unit of measurement, but we aren’t using it. At least, the people aren’t using it. The unit was reportedly used to build the Pentagon and Stonehenge.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Wisenox,
Why are the numbers found in reality called irrational numbers while digital numbers, which an approximation, called real numbers?
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
Why does science have to lead? It is so easily corrupted. I see it as an alternative – a choice from several routes, nothing more.
Championing science above all is itself, lack of humility.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
The issue is not “Following the Science” or “Leading the Science.” The issue is “The Science of Doctors,” which is not science. Doctors are not trained or practiced in (actual) science. Hence, their views and advice about science cannot be correct or avoided. Use caution.
https://bioanalyticx.com/an-m-d-degree-is-not-a-science-degree/
https://bioanalyticx.com/comments-on-the-article-do-viruses-exist-by-michael-palmer-m-d-and-sucharit-bhakdi-m-d/
Reply
Orlandobass
| #
That poses a good question. Would medicine be considered a “hard” science such as quantum physics or cosmology? I know a lot of students prior to med school study biology or, to an extent chemistry, but other than that, do they really do much to engage in the scientific method?
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Medicines are chemical-based, often pure chemicals; therefore, they must be part of “hard” science, i.e., chemistry. Medical experts (doctors) described chemistry not knowing or learning it and made false and fraudulent claims. For example, the virus has been isolated, which is not a valid claim because the end results of isolation mean having the thing in hand. They consider “virus isolate” an “isolated virus” the same. This is a example of ignorance and incompetency in science. They develop vaccines (chemicals) without testing against the virus or its illness. How can this be scientific?
If one sees the training and curriculum of medical training, it will be evident that they never studied or trained in science.
1. Practice of medicine – the fatal mindset https://bioanalyticx.com/practice-of-medicine-the-fatal-mindset/
2. Addressing The Issues Of Medicines And Their “Science” https://bioanalyticx.com/addressing-the-issues-of-medicines-and-their-science/
Reply
Orlandobass
| #
Thanks for your reply. Excellent point about virus isolate and isolated virus.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
“Medical experts (doctors) described chemistry not knowing or learning it and made false and fraudulent claims.”
As a chemist and teacher of chemistry, I can assure you that doctors are not the only students that don’t understand (learn) chemistry. But less one blames the chemistry teacher, I discovered, near the end of my teaching career, this quote of. Galileo, a mathematics teacher of geometry:. “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”
Which promotes the queation’ How do we help them to discover it in themselves? I read that Socrates was a great teacher and it seems common knowledge that he taught by only asking his students question and let them discuss possible answers among themselves before asking another question.
Have a good day
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thanks, Jerry, for your interesting comments. In modern times, not only chemistry but science (physics, chemistry, and/or mathematics), in general, has all been destroyed by opportunists and not-so-honest experts by labeling themselves as scientists.
Maybe it is worth watching this short video clip, telling you how far society has gone in disrespecting/insulting education, science, and its teachers. We are up against these “experts.”
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?mibextid=oFDknk&v=947468506971701&rdid=EpKxrZhEmSqKtmI2
I don’t know how one would reverse this trend. I am trying to give my two cents’ worth, pray, and hope for the best. I am also looking for suggestions from others.
Seriously
| #
Chemistry ONLY hard, true, 100% provable ‘science’. Everything else is trial and error, theory and estimation, experimental and open to failure.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Seriously,
No such thing as settled “provable” science.
Herb
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Seriously:
I agree with your view on chemistry and consider it valid for science (physics, chemistry and/or mathematics).
Herb Rose: You stretched Seriously’s view a bit far, which was not intended. Nothing in this world is “settled provable,” but we work within certain acceptable limits, and science is pretty good within those limits.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Saeed,
Chemistry tries to group elements into groups with similar properties but every element has different behavior and characteristics.
We may say the Noble Gases have full electron shells and are un-reactive but the larger ones do form chemical bonds. Carbon is a non-metal element that can form metallic bonds and act like a metal. A benzene ring contains bonds that are neither single or double but in between and there are bonds that are both covalent and ionic.
Chemistry is like the Chinese alphabet where every unit is a distinct word. In physics there are accepted absolute rules that are followed without exceptions.
There are no “laws” of chemistry only generalities.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
I did watch a quite a bit of the video but it seemed it had not yet ended when I stopped watching.
I wlll tell you about my teaching of Chemistry at a small community where I became a one-person chemistry department. Now a fact is that the Americans Chemical Society (ACS) has a chemical education division and in the late 1980s experienced professors at many major and minor universities observed the fact that their best students could not perform at the level of their previous students. For the Dept. of Education yearly wrote standardized tests of all common chemistry courses that a chemistry major was required, by the ACS, to take.
And I experimented with my introductary course. which met for 5 hours a week, a recitation hour was considered a lecture. Now I knew I never learned any chemistry in a lecture, even is I loyally attended lectures. And I know that learn chemistry by reading the textbook and worked at answering the assigned questions and the assigned problems that the author of the textbook had provided. And that was really driven home in grad school. So I eliminated the 4 hours of actual lecture and made myself available in my office 40 hours a week for students who were having problems doing the homework assignments.
When I instituted this NEW curriculum in the fall quarter, I got visits the next day from M.D.s who told me I could not teach chemistry without the traditional lectures. But I was hired to teach chemistry and I had testing evidence that students were learning chemistry.
However, at this time a student in another course which did have the standard ;lecture formate, earned a D when she required a C for her planned career path. So she charged me, the college president, and a state college board, with sexual and racial discrimination in federal district court and then, when the charge was dismissed, appealed that decision to the court of appeals which she also lost.
However the college president settled out of court to avoid publicity and then tried to dismiss me. So I negotiated a golden parachute and retired.
Hi Saeed,
I watched your video and tried to write a long comment for several hours (because pf age problems) and then I somehow deleted it. I might try to make a better reply later, but certainly not to day.
Given what you have written I really want to have a discussion with you. So maybe tomorrow I can compose a better and shorter comment.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Some how the lost is found but I will study it and see if I can improve it
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
I hear your frustration, and this is how they kept science/chemistry out of education to protect the fake science of medical and pharmaceutical sciences.
I can share one of my experiences in this regard. In the late sixties and early seventies, when I was studying science/chemistry (along with physics and mathematics) as a graduate/postgraduate student, I remember the university started a pharmacy department in a small house-sized building.
I visited the pharmacy department at their invitation in 2009 to give a seminar on the quality assessment of pharmaceutical products (using the drug dissolution technique – the backbone of quality testing). I saw the pharmacy department was expanded by swallowing the whole chemistry department space and the adjacent chemical technology faculty space. They probably expanded even further during the past fifteen years.
While visiting the department, a senior lecturer/professor showed me a dissolution tester sitting in a locked room in the original wrap, asking my help to train them to use the machine and its science. No one there was considered competent to operate and use it, with all their learning and expertise in pharmacy. I expressed my willingness to help them whenever I visit the country so it will not cost them anything.
However, I never received a call back from them. The reason is that during the seminar, I explained to them how current drug dissolution testing approaches are unscientific and cannot determine valid dissolution characteristics and, by extension, the product quality. Their jaws fell, and they got very nervous as their “science” was exposed as fake and false.
That is the end of the story; everyone in pharmaceutical science, like in medical science, continues as “modern science” (only understandable to these two faculties) and tries their best to push actual science/chemistry into a corner. This is where we are now, and the public is getting new “illnesses” and their “treatments” from these fake science experts.
Have you seen the sizes of the “health science” buildings and their funding/budgets? However, they could not produce a specimen of the “virus” – modern-day science experts and scientists.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
Here goes nothing if you do not respond to my questions. Can you “think” without using words?
Have a good day
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Oops!
What do you mean? Please use words to respond and explain. Thanks.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
hi Saeed,
Because you didn’t respond to my question with either the word “yes” or “no” I don’t resond to your request. I asked a question to which only you know the answer. I now ask another to see if might help you understand the purpose of my first question.
Einsteirn has written “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but Imagination.” and “Imagination is more important than knowledge. In ten words or less explain, using some scientific words, why you think Einstein concluded this?
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Jerry:
Could you please repeat the first question? I think I didn’t understand. I’ll be happy to respond.
Concerning the second question which you asked. “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but Imagination.” and “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” My answer is NO. I do not consider imagination to be more important than knowledge.
For example, virologists and doctors imagine things (e.g., viruses) that do not exist, and knowledge can refute them. Hence, I consider virologists and medical doctors not knowledgeable or intelligent.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Can you “think” without using words?”
I believe Jerry is referring to imagination, Dr Qureshi.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hellen Keller became blind and deaf when she was 19 months old. She was able to think and learned to speak.
There are lots of people who have a good vocabulary but are unable to think.
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thanks, Howdy, for the clarification. I responded to Jerry’s comment below.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Good comment. What can we learn from Helen’s experiences?
What was the first thing that Ann Sullivan taught her?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
My thoughts, reasoning, pondering are all based upon the definitions (more words) of words. As a chemist have to imagine that matter is composed of ATOMS, which Dalton never saw by using an instrument like a microscope. He had explain what was seen by imagining there were ATOMs. And for nearly a CENTURY Dalton and others had no idea what an atom was. But they knew there were atoms of different elements and based upon the observed physical and chemical of this elementary matter a diagram, a physical scientific Law, of this elementary matter was constructed before it was considered that matter was composed on these imaginary atoms.. I stop here to learn if you see, imagine, what my words mean.
Have a good day
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
I hope you are not comparing Dalton with the doctors/”scientists” in the FDA/CDC regarding immigration.
I do not believe Dalton imagined things (atoms); he explained (EXISTING) things based on his knowledge and expertise, which were later shown to be correct.
If you are referring to viruses and virology (imagining viruses and illnesses, like atoms and chemical reactions). In that case, they do not fall in the imagination category, but the hallucinations. They imagine or claim to be working with things that do not exist.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
Your opening statement “I hope you are not comparing Dalton with the doctors/”scientists” in the FDA/CDC regarding immigration.” This is evidence that you refuse to consider the actual history of CHEMISRTY and how chemists have acquired their CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE.
The “FDA/CDC” did not exist when Dalton offered his reasoning and experimental result that MATTER WAS COMPOSED OF TINY PARTICALS WHICH HE NAMED ATOMS. For he knew the history that others before him had considered the idea that matter was composed of atoms which were and are too small to be directly seen with any instrument. But he did not conclude that they did not exist because they had not been seen; as you see to do in the case of any possible virus particles. I have friends who have died of something. The is my evidence that tiny ‘unseeable’ viruses might (could) exist.
Have a good day
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
You are now arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not into it. I am sorry.
Regarding, “I have friends who have died of something. The is my evidence that tiny ‘unseeable’ viruses might (could) exist.”
Everyone dies, in many cases, without a knowable cause. That does not mean one should start virology (makeup science) with imaginary illnesses and/or viruses. To consider something as cause, there has to be some reason.
Leaving it as “something,” not a virus, is a better choice that allows the scientists/chemists to try to find out the cause by isolating the caustic agent, which could very well be a chemical entity, new or old, or maybe just in abnormally higher or lower concentrations than normal. However, the investigation has to come out of the cult of medicines.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
When I read there has been 26 comment I began reviewing what everyone had written. This article is very good and most of the comments seemed deal with the topic ( of the article.. As reviewed I found I have overlooked a statement of yours. “For example, virologists and doctors imagine things (e.g., viruses) that do not exist, and knowledge can refute them.” (July 5, 2024 at 5:44pm)
I now see a possible reason I didn’t read it because in your previous paragraph you had answered NO.
Einstein stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment cab prove me wrong.” I ask: Whose knowledge can prove any scientific idea wrong?
Have a good day
Reply