So true. Peer review is in part relying on consensus, but consensus only works if you can trust the peers. But peers who are sheep and who rely on authority for what they believe, are not trustable. Medicine is a major example of where this all fails. A lot of medical 'professionals' are merely liberal minds operating in a technical field. They are conditioned to obey authority. The doctors who deviate from this get ostracized. And the top of the food chain is the CDC, which is politicized and untrustable.
The comments I started seeing on podcasts are, " I don't need permission to think. If you have an issue with the data, bring it up. Then you've peer reviewed me" And, I agree with that. If there's no issue with the data to bring up, then it's just whining.
LegalMan of The Quash podcast spent over 30 years as an attorney and speaks similarly of the legal profession. Over half the laws are illegal according to the constitution but it's all appeal to authority and obey authority and go along to get along and the false reliance on "precedent" and lies about how supreme court cases change laws subjected upon parties not involved in the actual case.
One did better than I thought. The person who i picked as the biggest fraud or self-deceived pseudo-intelligent of all, i nailed it.
I will avoid spoilers in case anyone else wants to watch and see how well they can judge IQ by appearance.
Noteworthy: Males dominate upper tail end of IQ scores, but women are higher on average. That means males are extremely smart or extremely dumb whereas women have a more consistent IQ nearer center of bell curve.
Apropos your 'noteworthy'... I'm not really sure that that's true for (white) men. I think that almost all white men, if they're not (((influenced))) by (((society))) have an incredible combination of creativity/autism. A lot of 'dumb' white men make excellent mechanics or carpenters, because their creativity/autism is turned almost completely away from math/literature which are (((our))) standard measures of intelligence.
I don't think that the blonde girl who ranked #2 would have a chance in hell at being a good mechanic, just as I would have similarly low chances of applying make-up as well as she does.
a) true (want) or false (not want) implies consensus to suggested information, while ignoring to adapt to change (need). Ongoing change (thirst; hunger; breathing...) forces adaptation...your consent (want or not want) doesn't negate that.
b) RELY', verb - "to rest on something"...life is in motion (inception towards death). Others tempt one "to rest on" suggested information by ignoring motion.
Sleight of hand..."no rest (cessation of motion) for the wicked (departed)". Motion sets itself apart from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living).
...only works if
What if all represents one in energy (Greek, work)...what if everything works; no matter what each one within believes to "only work if"?
consensus only works if...
If the many consent to suggested choices, then they shape the "chosen few" who choose for them, hence exploiting mass ignorance, while wielding mass consent against the masses.
peers who are sheep
Consenting to suggested PEER, noun [Latin par.] - "an equal; one of the same rank" tempts one to ignore being different from each other one. Being implies diversity (living) within equality (process of dying)...the few suggest the inversion thereof (equality through diversity) to the consenting many.
Sleight of hand...counting sheep puts "one" to sleep. One needs to be ONE...not count other ones as two; three; four etc.
who rely on authority for what they believe, are not trustable
Both trust/distrust and belief/disbelief represent ones consent (want/not want) to the suggestion of another, hence consensual submission of oneself to another one aka to authorize another, while shirking response-ability (choice) over self.
The doctors who deviate from
A DOCKED ORE (phonetic; doctor) prevents the vessel from steering within the way (deviate)...
Researchers are no longer trying to seek and speak the truth. Scientists no longer believe in the truth. They no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond our human organisation which they have a duty to discover and disseminate. Hence, the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern science are not real science but merely a professional research bureaucracy.
The consequences? Research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should almost always be ignored.
In practice, this means that nearly all science needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
It's a book by Bruce Charleton I highly recommend. He ran one of the last scientific journals (the last?) to have only an editorial board, without an anonymous peer review process. He thought peer review was a farce. In the end, he was pushed out of the journal by the publishers after he published an article that argued AIDS was a false construct, that it's multiple illnesses not caused by a single (HIV) virus. The journal was then over-hauled to include a peer-review process.
They no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond our human organisation which they have a duty to discover and disseminate.
a) what if eternal represents change and what if internal represents the choice to ignore being changed?
b) what if eternal organ (process of dying) generates internal intestine (living)?
c) what if DIS (separated from) COVER (to conceal) tempts one to ignore that nature reveals whole (perceivable) to each partial (perceiving)?
d) what if DIS (separated from) SEMINATE (to sow, seed) tempts one to ignore being the seed (growth) within the soil (loss)?
e) what if others suggest the call of DUTY (that which one owes to another) to tempt one to ignore being bound as partial (perceiving) to whole (perceivable)...not to others (suggested)?
It's kinda unfortunate, both sides love to appeal to "peer reviewed study" like a child who just found a magic wand, even though peer reviewed status doesn't mean much. This approach is problematic because globalists have way more peer reviewed (crappy) studies on their side. One has to learn about the quality/type of study e.g. controlled? interventional? observational? sample size? P value? etc.
The silver lining here is researchers are not straight up faking the data, YET. You can read the paper and see what's going on even if the inference is rather weird. Also, there are still a few researchers who are willing to do the researches other shills avoid (e.g. RCT on subclinical myocarditis by mRNA shots).
Suggested PEER, noun [Latin par.] - "an equal; one of the same rank" tempts one to ignore that being (life) of the same (inception towards death) implies being different from one another.
reviewed paper
Consenting to a suggested paper tempts one to ignore RE (responding to) VIEW (perceivable view).
process
One needs to resist (living) being processed by (process of dying).
a) suggested "our" (plural) tempts one (singular) to ignore self.
b) suggested "for" (forwards aka progressivism) tempts one to ignore being the resistance (life) moved forwards (inception towards death).
c) one needs to think in response to origin (perceivable inspiration), not forwards (suggested information). Others tempt one with suggested outcomes to ignore perceivable origin.
proof
Being implies instability (living) within stability (process of dying), hence balancing (need/want) as free will of choice. Holding onto "proof" while being inside motion tempts one to ignore that motion changes all held onto "proof".
So true. Peer review is in part relying on consensus, but consensus only works if you can trust the peers. But peers who are sheep and who rely on authority for what they believe, are not trustable. Medicine is a major example of where this all fails. A lot of medical 'professionals' are merely liberal minds operating in a technical field. They are conditioned to obey authority. The doctors who deviate from this get ostracized. And the top of the food chain is the CDC, which is politicized and untrustable.
The comments I started seeing on podcasts are, " I don't need permission to think. If you have an issue with the data, bring it up. Then you've peer reviewed me" And, I agree with that. If there's no issue with the data to bring up, then it's just whining.
I can only speak to the topics I'm interested in, but they say they get people giving them more data and asking that their names not be used.
Well put.
LegalMan of The Quash podcast spent over 30 years as an attorney and speaks similarly of the legal profession. Over half the laws are illegal according to the constitution but it's all appeal to authority and obey authority and go along to get along and the false reliance on "precedent" and lies about how supreme court cases change laws subjected upon parties not involved in the actual case.
It's also because law builds on itself. Understanding 5 laws to get to the one that is being used wasn't an issue 30 years ago.
That reminds me of this video.
Worth a watch for the ending lol.
I watched one of these where they inquired about the number of sexual partners.
Interesting.
I accurately picked the top 3.
One did better than I thought. The person who i picked as the biggest fraud or self-deceived pseudo-intelligent of all, i nailed it.
I will avoid spoilers in case anyone else wants to watch and see how well they can judge IQ by appearance.
Noteworthy: Males dominate upper tail end of IQ scores, but women are higher on average. That means males are extremely smart or extremely dumb whereas women have a more consistent IQ nearer center of bell curve.
Apropos your 'noteworthy'... I'm not really sure that that's true for (white) men. I think that almost all white men, if they're not (((influenced))) by (((society))) have an incredible combination of creativity/autism. A lot of 'dumb' white men make excellent mechanics or carpenters, because their creativity/autism is turned almost completely away from math/literature which are (((our))) standard measures of intelligence.
I don't think that the blonde girl who ranked #2 would have a chance in hell at being a good mechanic, just as I would have similarly low chances of applying make-up as well as she does.
So true...relying on consensus
a) true (want) or false (not want) implies consensus to suggested information, while ignoring to adapt to change (need). Ongoing change (thirst; hunger; breathing...) forces adaptation...your consent (want or not want) doesn't negate that.
b) RELY', verb - "to rest on something"...life is in motion (inception towards death). Others tempt one "to rest on" suggested information by ignoring motion.
Sleight of hand..."no rest (cessation of motion) for the wicked (departed)". Motion sets itself apart from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living).
What if all represents one in energy (Greek, work)...what if everything works; no matter what each one within believes to "only work if"?
If the many consent to suggested choices, then they shape the "chosen few" who choose for them, hence exploiting mass ignorance, while wielding mass consent against the masses.
Consenting to suggested PEER, noun [Latin par.] - "an equal; one of the same rank" tempts one to ignore being different from each other one. Being implies diversity (living) within equality (process of dying)...the few suggest the inversion thereof (equality through diversity) to the consenting many.
Sleight of hand...counting sheep puts "one" to sleep. One needs to be ONE...not count other ones as two; three; four etc.
Both trust/distrust and belief/disbelief represent ones consent (want/not want) to the suggestion of another, hence consensual submission of oneself to another one aka to authorize another, while shirking response-ability (choice) over self.
A DOCKED ORE (phonetic; doctor) prevents the vessel from steering within the way (deviate)...
...tempts one to ignore perceivable hunger.
Consenting to suggested (defilement) or adapting to perceivable (enlightenment)...pollution represents free will of choice.
Knowledge filter.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Not-Even-Trying-Corruption-Science/dp/1908684186
It's a book by Bruce Charleton I highly recommend. He ran one of the last scientific journals (the last?) to have only an editorial board, without an anonymous peer review process. He thought peer review was a farce. In the end, he was pushed out of the journal by the publishers after he published an article that argued AIDS was a false construct, that it's multiple illnesses not caused by a single (HIV) virus. The journal was then over-hauled to include a peer-review process.
a) what if eternal represents change and what if internal represents the choice to ignore being changed?
b) what if eternal organ (process of dying) generates internal intestine (living)?
c) what if DIS (separated from) COVER (to conceal) tempts one to ignore that nature reveals whole (perceivable) to each partial (perceiving)?
d) what if DIS (separated from) SEMINATE (to sow, seed) tempts one to ignore being the seed (growth) within the soil (loss)?
e) what if others suggest the call of DUTY (that which one owes to another) to tempt one to ignore being bound as partial (perceiving) to whole (perceivable)...not to others (suggested)?
It's kinda unfortunate, both sides love to appeal to "peer reviewed study" like a child who just found a magic wand, even though peer reviewed status doesn't mean much. This approach is problematic because globalists have way more peer reviewed (crappy) studies on their side. One has to learn about the quality/type of study e.g. controlled? interventional? observational? sample size? P value? etc.
The silver lining here is researchers are not straight up faking the data, YET. You can read the paper and see what's going on even if the inference is rather weird. Also, there are still a few researchers who are willing to do the researches other shills avoid (e.g. RCT on subclinical myocarditis by mRNA shots).
Did the Rockefellers not begin the tradition of peer review on medicine?
Suggested PEER, noun [Latin par.] - "an equal; one of the same rank" tempts one to ignore that being (life) of the same (inception towards death) implies being different from one another.
Consenting to a suggested paper tempts one to ignore RE (responding to) VIEW (perceivable view).
One needs to resist (living) being processed by (process of dying).
"is" represents perceivable (everything); "not" represents suggested (nothing)...
a) suggested "our" (plural) tempts one (singular) to ignore self.
b) suggested "for" (forwards aka progressivism) tempts one to ignore being the resistance (life) moved forwards (inception towards death).
c) one needs to think in response to origin (perceivable inspiration), not forwards (suggested information). Others tempt one with suggested outcomes to ignore perceivable origin.
Being implies instability (living) within stability (process of dying), hence balancing (need/want) as free will of choice. Holding onto "proof" while being inside motion tempts one to ignore that motion changes all held onto "proof".