What Can Graphene Oxide Teach Us About Facts and Fictions?
This is a beautiful piece that covers several important themes. How can we sort out fact from fiction in a world where the governments and media are working as hard as they can to keep us confused and off balance?
He also explains in a nutshell that bad pharma corporations will commit a variety of crimes to keep a profitable but dangerous drug on the market, including turning scientific criticisms into ‘conspiracy theories.’
He explains a very potent concept for processing information, which may be challenging to adopt.
However, if you aren’t sure of one right answer, and can teach yourself to keep multiple possibilities in play within your mind before you are able to rule one or more out, and you continue to gather information until the right answer becomes completely clear, you will be able to navigate the swamp of disinformation we are bombarded with effectively.
I LOVE the way the Midwestern Doctor explains this, and provides multiple examples.
And there is so much more to this story. Do read and enjoy his article below.
Since I was young, I’ve craved information, and looking down every avenue for it soon brought me into the world of conspiracy theories and alternative sciences.
From that world, I assembled a relatively wide lattice of beliefs and relative probabilities I attached to each (e.g., I think there is a 20 percent chance one conspiracy theory is true, whereas I believe there is a 90 percent another one is true).
Then, as I came across more information, I gradually revised and updated those probabilities.
Since I spent a lot of time in this conspiracy realm, I feel I should share that one of the biggest things I took from exploring it was how often a corporation would commit a crime against the American people to keep a profitable product on the market.
Then once people tried to expose the crime, the corporation would put out fake science and biased news coverage claiming the idea the crime was happening was a conspiracy, resulting in the conspiracy realm being the only place you could learn about the crime. It really bothered me how often I saw this happen.
Eventually, I drifted away from that field because I hit the point where most of it was repetitive, it didn’t seem like an efficient way for me to gain more knowledge and I started looking in other areas instead.
As time went on, I realized that my experience with the conspiracy literature significantly differed from almost everyone else I talked to for two key reasons:
•I was at peace with holding contradictory beliefs or theories in mind. I never viewed any of them as a tangible reality and instead saw each as a relative probability that composed part of a larger probability field.
I, in turn, assumed I would eventually gain insights into how to address these contradictions, and their contradictory existence didn’t bother me since none of them existed as solid entities my mind had latched onto.
•My foremost desire was to learn as much as possible, so I was not particularly attached to any specific idea or concept I came across.
I was specifically drawn to the joy of realizing I had uncovered a deeper truth and the expansion I experienced in my mind when my reality was broadened rather than the specific idea that made this experience happen.
See more here substack.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
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.
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
•I was at peace with holding contradictory beliefs or theories in mind. I never viewed any of them as a tangible reality and instead saw each as a relative probability that composed part of a larger probability field—quotes the author>
Sigh. Here we go again.
“Doublethink is a term first introduced by George Orwell in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, Orwell describes it as “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.””
Reply
Mike D.
| #
I respect your perspective, but if you read very carefully, Dr. Meryl clearly states that he does NOT “accept” the contradictory beliefs that he is holding in his mind. He, being a scientist as well as a doctor, understands how to put all evidence in a “holding file” where it can be scrutinized, questioned, and analyzed BEFORE drawing any firm conclusions.
Those who only hold in their minds the ideas they believe are true do not have the ability to perform critical analyses.
Reply
Frank S.
| #
The question of graphene oxide (or hydroxide) inclusion in the vax served as the Shepherd’s Staff in separating the (good) sheep from the (bad) goats of the flock of docs & experts.
Reply
Robert
| #
I do not have any doubt that Campra “s report was independently verified so there is no question that in the vials they examined Graphene oxide was present. One independent scientists lab report is worth more to me than any number of doctors who can say what ever they want with out publishing a proper scientific Document. It is graphene oxide until proven otherwise.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
@ “One independent scientists lab report is worth more to me than any number of doctors …” Exactly!
Please share a publication on measuring graphene (or its oxide or hydroxide) in vaccines, tissues, or fluids – not pictures, particularly people who showed harm or death by the vaccine. Thanks.
Reply
Mike D.
| #
I just subscribed to Dr. Meryl’s annual program because I was immensely impressed with the love for truth exhibited by Dr. Meryl, a love which supercedes the typical love most people have to be seen as being “right”, or as Dr. Meryl described as coveting a seemingly valuable piece of information that few others possess. Another reason I subscribed was that I see that Dr. Meryl understands and utilizes a thinking process which is highly logical and which utilizes tools to discern whether certain perceptions are based on emotions and biases or whether they are based on actual evidence. Thank you, Dr. Meryl, for being a beacon of hope for all of us who love truth and who love logical, critical, analytical, scientific thinking.
Reply