Anti-Ivermectin Deception in a Major Medical Journal?

7 Comments

In the image above you can see the weakest to the strongest information categories with the strongest, most logically reliable type of study at the top (called Meta Analysis) and the weakest at the bottom (called Expert Opinion / Background Information). Of course meta analysis articles like the one linked here brought a swift response from the powerful gatekeepers who tried to push meta studies down the trustworthiness pyramid and raise the individual randomized controlled trials up to the top.

It’s true that a meta-study is only as good as the original studies that comprise it, but that principle of quality also applies to any single study, so neither category can claim an innate higher quality without the same level of critical, logical evaluation. Perhaps more time is required to go through a meta analysis, but once that job is done, you’ve got a more valuable source of information than a single randomized, controlled trial. The same careful, critical analysis is required at both levels.

Yet some will use quality claims as a reason to push single trials above the meta analysis of many single trials on the value pyramid above. This claim is pushed as Expert Opinion (the bottom level of the information quality pyramid) here in Nature, where we are warned of the supposed inherent dangers of meta studies, as if there were something inherently deceptive about the statistical analyses of multiple blinded, controlled, randomized, and statistically evaluated studies that is somehow inherently absent from a single trial.

It’s not logical to me, but I see their argument and the hard work that went into making it. Kudos for that.

“Expert opinion” rightly belongs at the bottom of the scientific strength pyramid, largely because breakthrough science must always fight an uphill battle against entrenched experts who “know beyond a shadow of doubt” in their unbasted wisdom, that any “new-fangled idea” must be wrong and should be zealously squelched.

Scientists are only human.

Another reason for keeping “expert opinion” at the bottom of the scientific evidence pyramid is the ever-changing decrees of Anthony Fauci throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since the bean-counting lawyers and administrators who run clinical medicine and the US government don’t know just how horribly unreliable “expert opinion” has always been in science, they went ahead and reversed the entire process of scientific medical discovery.

It has always involved hundreds and thousands of MD’s and PhD’s arguing in open literature and meetings. Instead, medical science was replaced by the tyrannical dictates of an 80-something-year-old MD who avoids treating any category of patients, let alone the COVID patients over whom he wielded life-and-death decrees in harmony with Big Pharma’s financial motives.

Inertia against any potential scientific breakthrough happens in every field of science, modern medicine being typical throughout its brief history.

Many medical people and mainstream reporters now believe that a single randomized controlled study (third from the top) is the strongest form of evidence. These good folk are extremely busy doing stressful, difficult work and can’t help it that they often seem brain-dead. They have barely the time to skim through an abstract of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. They look only for a one-sentence synopsis of the conclusion while scanning for the holy words: “blinded, controlled, randomized.”

When they see these words and note that a few thousand patients were involved in reaching a “significant” p-value of 0.05 or less, they “know” they’ve got “infallible” information, about the way a fundamentalist believer of any Western religion feels confident they’ve got the truth when reading an ancient text from a holy book.

But what’s really going on here?

A p-value of 0.05 means that someone wearing thick glasses who can crunch statistical odds in a way that hardly anyone else can has determined from naked numerical data alone that the mathematical odds show a 95% probability that the study’s conclusion is valid (i.e. NOT due to random chance). Which is to say, there’s a 5% chance that the study’s conclusion is due to random chance alone, not due to the drug being effective, but this 5% chance is probably small enough to ignore. (It’s an arbitrary cutoff point, not a natural phenomenon.)

When the stars align and these nice words and numbers appear in the abstract (the only part of the paper that’s freely available to the public who funded the research) these busy medical professionals and the public’s busy mainstream reporters who have no medical education whatsoever rush off and spread yet another “final medical truth” to the patients and public respectively.

It’s useful, however, to realize that a failure to reach a significant p-value can come entirely from having too few patients in the study. (The fewer patients involved in a trial, the more the results look like anecdotal stories to a statistician. The effectiveness of the drug cannot be measured without a large number of patients in the trial. The more the merrier. )

For example, you canNOT do a truly scientific study to determine whether or not a cheap generic “antibiotic X” cures bacterial pneumonia if you only have 30 patients in your trial. Every clinician using this “antibiotic X” may swear that it’s worked well on thousands of their own patients (anecdotally). But the “scientific” study with too few subjects will necessarily fail to show statistical significance no matter how good the drug is.

In our hypothetical example, the p-value isn’t small enough for significance. Let’s say it’s “p = 0.09” (meaning that there’s only a 90% probability that “antibiotic X” really saves lives).

Since the details are a bit subtle, the ridiculously stressed and busy reporters run a literal footrace to become the first to publish a story with a headline like, “New Study Proves Antibiotic X Ineffective Against Bacterial Pneumonia.”

OK, p-values are complex to calculate, have an arbitrary cut-off point, and are steeped in the sort of simple binary thinking that appeals to busy medical doctors in the cook-book practices forced upon them by dollar bean-counters, insurance companies, and ambulance-chasing lawyers. But understanding p-values is not beyond a reporter’s ability, at least in binary terms and a tad beyond. Let’s go there now…

It would be downright life-saving if the reporters who decide medical truth for the public nowadays would try to understood a little about the connection between treating infections early and p-values.

If you suffer recurring viral “fever blisters,” for example, you know to take your acyclovir (or whatever) as soon as possible after the first symptoms appear, or else you’ll have a big ugly sore on you lip for a week. “No it’s not Herpes, I was mugged again.”

Or if you have a migraine headache coming on, you know you’ve got to do your Wim Hof breath holding (to get your adrenalin and your heart rate up) and/or take whatever medication works for you as soon as possible to avoid a painful, nauseating misery that could last for days.

It’s the same with any viral infection, with any type of cancer, and with many other harmful biological phenomena.

The later you treat a disease, the less likely the treatment will work, no matter how great it is when used early.

There’s a natural cut-off deadline, or tipping point where time has run out, you’ve waited too long and the treatment that would have worked will no longer have much effect.

So in our example of an inexpensive generic “antibiotic X,” lets say there were 3,000 patients (n=3,000) in the trial. We should expect a significant p-value, right?

Well, not if “antibiotic X” is given (on average) too late in the course of infection.

Suppose the study was deliberately set up to allow many of the patients into the study who had been sick with bacterial pneumonia for a week before getting “antibiotic X.”

Your study would have a mix of patients who were treated early enough to be saved along with a large number whose pneumonia was treated after the condition was too advanced and couldn’t be stopped by anything short of a miracle.

Let’s say the study came out with a p-value that was too high for the typical binary, arbitrary interpretation of statistical significance. The p-value crunched out at “p = 0.09” (meaning there is only a 91 % likelihood that the antibiotic was effective, rather than the arbitrary cut-off of 95%).

Would you think that MDs and the media would be totally convinced that “antibiotic X” is worthless?

Yes they would.

We know this from a real-world example coming to us from a study of Ivermectin reported in JAMA, (Journal of the American Medical Association), a widely respected medical journal despite accusations of an “anti-Ivermectin for COVID” bias fueled by Big Pharma shenanigans.

Here’s an article that details how this particular example of pseudoscience against Ivermectin reached the public.

The average time from first COVID symptoms to Ivermectin treatment was 5.1 days in this deliberately botched clinical trial reported in JAMA. The reported “confidence interval” for the 5.1 days was 1.3. This tells us that few patients were treatment within 3 days of their first COVID symptoms. This is a huge design error that appears deliberate.

Those docs who have treated thousands of COVID patients with Ivermectin will tell you that it’s crucial to begin the drug within 3 days or less of the patient’s first flu-like symptoms: runny nose, chills, fever, loss of smell, headache, weakness, sore throat, etc.

The gatekeepers at JAMA know this full well. They are extreme outliers in intelligence (IQ) and in their personal reading time of the medical literature. They understand the pathophysiology of early treatment of infectious diseases. They’re likely all “scientific” materialists with a worldview that excludes the existence of anything approaching non-relative morality. If so, they believe that dishonesty and cheating are fine if you “win” for some greater cause, such as avoiding the spread of “vaccine hesitancy” around the globe.

So IF Big Pharma scratches the backs of the JAMA editors, or perhaps threatens their careers, they might tend to do what they’re told and believe what they’ve been taught to believe.

IF Big Pharma advised them to discredit a cheap generic drug like Ivermectin and push a brand-new expensive drug with fresh patents, they might go along for the ride, hoping to retire early and keep their jobs, while doing the “right thing” for humanity.

But even the slightest degree of dishonesty and cheating stops genuine science in its tracks. This is the strongest secular air-tight reason for total honesty, at least in science if not in everything else humans do.

As you’ve probably noticed, corporations tend to behave like “scientific” materialists and tyrants such as Putin who believe that “survival of the fittest” is true morality, “natural selection” is virtuous, and there is no objective good or evil, only changeable notions of right and wrong with no rock-solid reason for honesty in a laboratory.

So it might be expected that JAMA’s gatekeepers and Big Pharma would publish an Ivermectin study where most of the patients received Ivermectin long after the first 3 days of symptom onset. And that’s exactly what they did.

Another thing that’s helpful in avoiding p-value deceptions is this: a study’s measured outcomes (like death) can be selected in a way that’s destined to fail the p-value analysis.

For example, if you’re studying a treatment for a disease like COVID that kills roughly four people out of 1000 these days (the approximate current COVID death rate in Mississippi now, as I understand it), you would probably need several hundred thousand people in the study to “achieve significance” no matter how good your drug is.

Any such study with only a thousand patients would be expected to have about four deaths total in the controls. If the drug worked well and there were only one death in the treated patient cohort, the number crunchers would say there are not enough instances of death to give a significant p-value to the avoidance of death in the drug cohort.

But the headlines would say the drug is worthless…

Unless, of course, the drug is an expensive new one with patents. Then Big Pharma would send out reps to help the journalists’ and MD’s understand the subtleties of p-values. Plus there would be a big section in the published paper explaining how this wonderful is likely going to save lives because it achieved “near statistical efficacy.”

Like a study with too few patients overall, a study that measures too rare of an outcome will fail to achieve p-value significance. Intelligent Designers of a study would know this in the planning stage and avoid it if they were being honest.

This is what went wrong in the study that “proved” the ineffectiveness of Ivermectin to the public. The study only measured two outcomes, death and being placed on a ventilator.

But despite that, try to imagine how JAMA hid this glaring revelation about Ivermectin, forcing people to dig it out of the paper if they have a few hours and know what to look for…

Even with these dishonest biases baked into the trial ahead of time, the study in JAMA that supposedly “proved” Ivermectin was ineffective, actually showed that the patients who were not treated with Ivermectin (the controls) were about 300% (3 times) more likely to die of COVID-19 than the patients who were treated with Ivermectin. And the p-value for this was 0.09 which means that the number crunchers of naked statistics showed that the odds are 91% that this study’s death-defying outcome was not due to random chance, but was almost certainly due to the generic, cheap drug, Ivermectin alone. Which is to say that the odds are only 9 out of 100 (9%) that the life-saving outcomes in this deliberately flawed study of Ivermectin were due to chance alone.

Medical science is like learning a complex computer app for trading the financial markets, it’s easy to understand, but it takes patience, a lot of persistence, and above all, repetition of super-boring information to get things burned into long-term memory. From there you can step back and make a logical, informed analysis.

Hope I didn’t bore you with this article.

So far, it seems that Omicron is providing humanity with herd immunity as hoped. The new Omicron subvariant BA.2 is definitely more easily spread from person to person than the original Omicron. And BA.2 might also be somewhat more dangerous, but I think the jury is still out on this question. Time will tell fairly soon.

Anyway, ask yourself this: if and when you get COVID-19 (experts say everyone will get it), will you take Ivermectin? It’s a medication that’s cheap, has a long track record of safety in humans, and has a 90% chance of actually being the cause-and-effect agent that kept three times as many patients alive compared to controls in a clinical trial that appears to have been obviously designed to fail at the arbitrary p-value cutoff level, missing by only 4%.

Or is it more logical to go along with mainstream headlines and refuse Ivermectin treatment? After all, it has been emotionally associated with the “wrong” political party, with cancelled “anti-vaxxer” physicians, and in my humble case, with a retired surgical pathologist and cytopathologist who thinks UFOs are unquestionably real and the Ancient Astronaut Theory is not as nuts as Giorgio’s hair.

It’s always aliens, don’t be silly.

Whatever you decide, especially if you’re a person of color, please make sure your vitamin D levels are well up into the upper “normal” reference range. If not, ask your doc if you can safely take over-the-counter D3 supplements. The science on adequate vitamin D levels helping to prevent COVID deaths is rock-solid. And yet people of color around the world don’t seem to be getting enough of it, as best I can infer from global COVID death stats.

…

Unbiased Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Exiting the Materialist Worldview with Self-awareness

9 Comments

When my mind and heart joined forces to break away from a somewhat “scientific” materialistic version of fundamentalist Christianity (in the ever-evolving SDA Church as it was in Southern California in 2001), I kept my “friendship” with a Supreme Being intact by praying a lot.

We tend to hang on to certain subjectively tested assumptions that are difficult to test objectively in a blinded, controlled way.

Instead of rejecting God, I rejected the assumption of mainstream Christianity that the Bible is infallible, lacks contradictions when correctly understood with God’s help, and is the primary (if not the exclusive) written communication from the Divine Source to humanity.

But I didn’t throw out the ancient Judeo-Christian writings or any other ancient or modern spiritual writings as if they were of no value. I think they’re all vital to our spiritual evolution and survival as a species. Binary thinking is the human error that would have us toss them out.

I’ve seen a few good people leave the SDA church and hang on to their version of God, and also hang on to their assumption that the Bible is essentially infallible when properly interpreted. These folk tend to join another fundamentalist Christian Church, retain their sense of superior religious enlightenment, and continue to attempt to “prove” that their new beliefs are right based upon their new understanding of the “infallible” Bible.

I’ve also seen a few people leave the SDA church and reject the existence of a personal Supreme Being as well as the Bible. These folk, (n=3), may continue an interest in spiritual things and possibly join a non-Christian religious belief system. Alternatively, they may reject all spiritual things and fall back upon “scientific” materialism (the anti-spiritual, pseudo-scientific, untestable assumption that the universe and everything beyond it consists of mindless, random matter and energy).

Everyone tends to see their own worldview, new or old, as the most reasonable and accurate one. Fortunately some can see this human tendency and question its influence on their own thinking.

As you may recall, I’m often wrong about important things.

Despite this glaring fallibility, it seems clear to me that “scientific” materialism is not only anti-scientific and anti-spiritual, it’s also toxic to humanity because it creates a meaningless, purposeless worldview that seems to cause clinical depression and leads people like Putin into cruel, amoral behaviors that can be justified by the materialist belief that free will is a false illusion and morality doesn’t exist except in a flexible, user-friendly way.

Lately I’ve noticed a growing number of highly educated people associated with the UFO community leaving “scientific” materialism in a way that reminds me of how I left Christian fundamentalism while holding on to my most treasured assumption.

My most treasured assumption was and is my sense of friendship with an intelligent, benevolent, loving Supreme Being, whose personal characteristics still seem to me to be best reflected in many (but not all) of the saying attributed to Jesus in the Bible.

Similarly, some people who leave “scientific” materialism hold on to their most precious assumption: that the Universe is impersonal. I can’t fault them for doing the same sort of thing I did. But let’s at least clarify it a bit.

Those who exit materialism may reject ultimate universal randomness, they may come to believe that there’s something more to reality than matter and energy, they may come to believe that the Universe is a great supercomputer or perhaps the physical brain of a huge organism inside which we are its tiny separate dissociated egos, or they may even come to believe in a higher Spirit as Einstein said…

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some Spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man.” – Albert Einstein

But is a Spirit personal? Not necessarily.

It seems to me that many who “leave” materialism don’t leave a certain debilitating aspect of it.

They hold on to the untestable assumption that, one way or another, the higher “seemingly intelligent” force, or computer, or brain, or Spirit cannot possibly be personal to humans. That is, prayer cannot really be the process of talking to a loving Friend with the highest personal morality, because the Supreme Force cannot possibly have anything to do with human morality. It must be seen as either too smart, too finite and divided, too infinite, or in some other way incapable or unwilling to connect with a human being in a personal way. Even if the Source were in some sense a Person, the notion of he/she/it listening to humans individually or even collectively would be impossible. It would be like a human trying to talk with a bacteria, we’re told.

But here’s the thing. The DNA codes of Earth and possibly those of the rest of the Universe are a hyper-complex language with “codes within codes within codes” as geneticist Garry Nolan, put it. The age of the Universe (still thought to be a mere 13.8 billion years) is but a miniscule fraction of the time required for mindless, random forces (random mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection) to come up with a code for a functional protein of modest size, let alone simultaneously coming up with a protein nano-factory necessary to maintain and replicate that DNA while carrying out its other complex commands.

So, ignoring the mainstream noise to the contrary, it’s scientifically respectable now to postulate that an intelligence greater than our own had a personal role in writing the first genetic codes and constructing the first protein nano-factories of this Universe.

Certainly anyone with an open mind can see that it’s reasonable to postulate that the intelligent minds behind modern UFOs might have advanced DNA technology giving them an ability to tamper with, if not Intelligently Design new DNA code.

But taking it a step further, the first DNA codes of the Universe, together with the first intracellular nano-machines that must have been present at the same time to interpret and obey the machine language of those DNA codes, could reasonably be postulated to have come from a Source living beyond the reality we call the Universe or its space-time matrix of potential.

And it seems obvious that any Mind capable of writing DNA code would also be capable of understanding human language. So the idea that prayer is talking to a Real Friend who can literally hear you and care about your life is not the objective impossibility it’s often assumed to be by materialist “science.”

And if you explore the evidence that our Universe appears to have a number of characteristics of a holodeck-like replica of some more fundamental reality, then you might reasonably conclude that the personal monitoring of, and contact with, each person within this replica by Someone beyond it would be a likely possibility.

Naturally, I would encourage anyone leaving the “scientific” materialist faith to personally test the hypothesis that our Higher Source is a personal and loving Being, rather than impersonal and out of contact with us.

As far as I know, the only way to test this hypothesis is to pray and see if you have a sense of connecting with Someone.

If you accept consciousness as something other than a false illusion, then subjective testing is at least a reasonable approach. Some might argue it’s the only approach available even to scientists, because we must all pass any data through the lens of consciousness.

Prayer is a matter of “talking to God as to a friend,” as far as I know.

But test the hypothesis your own way and call it meditation if the word prayer doesn’t sound right. After all, I’m often wrong about important things, and testing this particular hypothesis seems extremely important because…

If enough of humanity were to discover how to talk to a Loving Supreme Being who does what’s right because it is right and respects free will because it’s the right thing to do, my gut feeling is that our species would…

eventually stop enjoying real and pretend violence on TV,

stop believing that war is inevitable,

stop electing sociopath leaders,

stop stumbling toward nuclear holocaust,

work together to end poverty without cancelling the freedoms of the non-elite,

stop polluting our bodies and the planet,

learn to survive the dangerous aspects of our technologies long enough to evolve into a loving species that could safely expand beyond Earth and be accepted into, perhaps, a larger society of mature species out in the Universe who have learned to “love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them.”

…

Conscious, Intelligent, Personal Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Putin’s Worldview Invades as Tyranny Strangles the West

1 Comment

In a speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 2021, Putin exposed his popular worldview.

Putin: “We all know that the competition, rivalry between countries in the world history has not stopped and will never stop. And contradictions, conflicts of interests are actually also a natural thing for such a complex organism as human civilization.”
Source : https://realnoevremya.com/articles/5175-putin-speaks-about-the-end-of-civilisation-at-economic-forum-in-davos

Putin’s amoral defeatist worldview rejects personal and collective integrity and accepts war, violence and “winning” at all costs.

This common worldview is derived from “scientific” materialism, the mainstream pseudo-scientific assumption that everything is reducible to waves and particles. Nothing else exists.

Many if not most of these faith-based believers see our Universe as an amoral, random, meaningless place in which humans are merely smart apes without souls, without free will, without accountability, and without genuine consciousness (because there is no such thing).

Morality is relative (at best) to materialist “science” and can be ignored without negative consequences if one is careful, because morality isn’t real in a universe where free will is an illusion and accountability applies only to those who are caught breaking human laws. Of course, there is no God or Intelligent Source of order in this worldview, nor is there karma, or any transcendent higher purpose that might inspire anyone toward personal integrity or dissuade anyone from abusing the weak.

Free will, actual decisions, good hearts, loving souls… all of this is illusion and pure nonsense to the toxic hypnotic trance of “scientific” materialism.

Of course, Mr. Putin is human and not pure evil. He has simply been misled by a mad worldview and seeks to win for himself and for those who have enabled his rise to power.

Putin is not the only one with a fundamentally amoral worldview. Western tyrants like Justin P. J. Trudeau, the pseudo-liberal prime minister of Canada, graduate of the World Economic Form, is trying his best to gently “win” at all costs by erasing democracy from Canada. While his religious affiliation, if any, is contradictory online and difficult to determine with certainty, his actions are in goose step with “scientific” materialism.

In the insightful video below, Russell Brand explains how Trudeau has thrown the “evil” Truckers into Jail, shut down their bank accounts, and cancelled their insurance, all without due process of law. He has treated them as criminals before trial, assuming guilt rather than innocence.

But this is a small start compared to what he’s saying he will do next, all without public consent or any voting.

What he’s doing is like the Patriot Act on steroids.

In his infinite amoral-materialist wisdom, Trudeau has decided to ingrain within government routine the digital “tools” which enabled him to exile the truckers from their jobs, from their money, and from the ability to feed their families before trial.

This new power of the state to take anybody out of society’s financial system without due process will be made permanent from the top down to the citizens without allowing the citizens of Canada to vote for or against granting their government totalitarian power over them.

The brain-dead mainstream media in the US, and probably Canada too, will cheer-lead Trudeau’s peaceful murder of democracy by decree in Canada, a breathtakingly beautiful country where many of us least expected Davos’ reset shenanigans to blossom into tyranny.

And so we see the fundamental agreement between Mr. Putin and our young charismatic leaders from Davos.

…

Democracy Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

“If you ever wanted to believe in God, just look inside the cell.” -Gary Nolan, PhD (genetics)

9 Comments

Garry P. Nolan represents the return of objectivity to 21st century science. He holds the Rachford and Carlota A. Harris Professor Endowed Chair in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine.

When asked what advice he would give to a young person pursuing a scientific career, Garry Nolan says to go after the anomalous observations, the points that are “off the graph.”

Regarding the way older scientists have advised younger ones to avoid unorthodox interpretations and taboo fields of investigation, Dr. Nolan’s says he “reverse-shames” these incurious people…

“You’re wanting to take something off the table that might be an explanation. How is that the scientific method?” Garry Nolan, PhD — 1:37:37 on the video below.

In the beginning of the interview, Lex Fridman askes Dr. Nolan,

“What is the most beautiful or fascinating aspect of human biology at the level of the cell…?”

Dr. Nolan, a PhD in genetics, answers, “The micro-machines and nano-machines that proteins make and become. That to me is the most interesting. The fact that you have this basically dynamic computer within every cell that’s constantly processing everything in its environment, and at the heart of it is DNA which is a dynamic machine, a dynamic computation process. People think of DNA as a linear code. It’s codes within codes within codes. It is, in fact, the epigenetic state that’s doing this amazing process. If you ever wanted to believe in God, just look inside the cell.“

Subliminal message: read Stephen Meyer, PhD, Signature in the Cell.

A few moments later, Dr. Nolan assures the “scientific” materialists who control the funding of science, that he himself doesn’t particularly side with the God hypothesis. He does, however, see the origin of life as hinging upon the origin of the Universe…

“It’s [the universe is] computing towards something. It was created in some ways, if you believe in God, and I don’t know that I do, but if you want to believe in something, the universe was created or at least enabled to allow for life to form.”

I think he’s referring to the fine-tuning of the universal physical constants of nature, each a specific number (or magnitude), that must be one specific value (out of infinite possibilities) for life to exist and for the Universe as we know it to be here.

Spiritual scientists might say that God or a Supreme Consciousness fine-tuned physics. Mainstream science might says that God is unscientific and all consciousness, even our own, is a non-material illusion, so a “multiverse” manufacturing process must exist to explain the fine-tuning. This falls within their rigid, dogmatic paradigm of randomness as the highest controlling agency in and beyond the Universe(s). They might say that each new universe popped into existence spontaneously out of nothingness until our Universe emerged from nothingness having been randomly self-selected from among a nearly infinite variety of other possible (and/or real) universes that could not support life as we know it.

To me, any variant of the Consciousness hypothesis seems more scientific than the “multiverse” idea, because we know that consciousness exists, but we can’t detect the multiverse mechanism or observe any of its proposed “multiverses” besides our own. And if someday we are able to directly observe this multiverse creator, could we prove that it wasn’t a conscious, intelligent and therefore a spiritual Entity? I doubt it.

In the human experience, conscious intelligence produces the complex computer codes that run, for instance, robotic automobile manufacturing plants. Science usually uses the known to help explain the unknown because trying to explain the unknown with another unknown is usually less enlightening. It’s like explaining the black plague as a visit from the grim reaper.

Conscious intelligence is a known. We scientists should use it as such. The random, mindless, “multiverse” machine is entirely undetectable and unlike anything familiar. Perhaps we should not use it as a tool for canceling honest scientific inquiry into conscious, intelligent, and therefore arguably spiritual explanations of scientific enigmas. It’s not a matter of, “God did it, so I’m no longer interested in natural laws and phenomena.” It’s more like, “An Intelligent Consciousness seems to have left a signature in nature. That makes me more curious about natural laws and phenomena.”

As you may remember from Dr. Meyer’s book, impossible odds also face those who ascribe the coded information in DNA to random mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection.

The Universe would have to be infinitely old or infinitely large for the information coded within DNA to have come into existence by random forces. Of course, it’s possible that science will someday find unconscious computer-like processes carried out by the Universe herself, as Dr. Nolen implies. But if that discovery comes, we will be left wondering if perhaps an Intelligent Consciousness designed and built the computer-like aspects of the Universe.

Whatever the future holds for human spiritual evolution, the good news of Dr. Nolan’s bold career is that modern science’s avoidance of taboo fields of study and academia’s traditional censorship of unpopular explanations are finally crumbling. Today the most brilliant scientists in the world realize that censorship and anti-spiritual bias are anti-scientific. They’re putting their money, time, energy and public reputations behind objective science, taking seriously ALL data and ALL interpretations, rather than just the random, mindless, rigidly materialistic data and hypotheses.

This is the worldview breakthrough that humanity has been searching for since the early to mid 1800’s when the worldview pendulum of science swung from one bad extreme (the unscientific assumption of the “obviousness” of God as the final explanation to the exclusion of randomness) to the opposite bad extreme (the unscientific assumption of the “obviousness” of mindless randomness in a purely physical universe as the final explanation to the exclusion of a Higher Intelligence, a.k.a. “scientific” materialism or physicalism).

Until recently, Intelligent Design has been promoted mainly by a few Christian Creationist scientists while mainstream science ridiculed their ideas and openly destroyed their careers.

But now, with Garry Nolan explaining that belief in God is reasonable if you understand DNA and the nano-factories of the cell, even though he doesn’t believe in God himself, science appears to be progressing to a new level of objectivity and away from the past emotional worldview biases with their pre-conceived dogmas: “everything must be ultimately random” or “everything must be ultimately controlled by God.” To the scientists steeped in a fading worldview dogma of one sort or the other, Dr. Nolan says,

“You’re wanting to take something off the table that might be an explanation. How is that the scientific method?” Garry Nolan, PhD — 1:37:37 on the video.

Not only has Dr. Nolan given breathing room to scientists with spiritual awareness like myself who pray to an intelligent, personal God, Nolan has given scientific credibility to the field of Ufology.

But before we get into that, I need to say that I feel as if my “friendship” with God is entirely real and almost qualifies me as belonging to an unrecognized subclass of “experiencer.” The term “experiencer” typically includes (but is not limited to) near-death experiencers, UFO experiencers, alien being experiencers, alien abductee experiencers, science-download experiencers (like Nicola Tesla), and perhaps a few famous science fiction writers who seem to have accurately predicted future events and inventions.

Dr. Nolan has made a scientific observation that might connect various types of “experiencers” with what Kit Green has called “higher functioning individuals or savants.” Only one person in 200-300 individuals has this anomaly, it seems. It’s an “enriched patch of neurons” in the basal ganglia of which we each have two, one in each cerebral hemisphere, each having two-pieces, the caudate and the putamen. Recent studies tells us that the basal ganglia are a goal-processing system serving executive functions of the higher cerebral cortices. The basal ganglia involve intuition and planning. When I was in med school, the basal ganglia were thought to be limited to the control of muscles. Now they’re sometimes called, “the brain within the brain.“

(at 17:50 in the video below):

Lex: You’ve looked at the brains of… people who have had UFO encounters. What’s common about the brain of people who have encountered UFOs?

A cohort of unusual fMRI studies were brought to Dr. Nolan. He examined them and found that most of them were suffering from “Havana syndrome,” a strange and debilitating illness that was first found in diplomats and CIA officers at the US Embassy in Havana in 2016. Dr. Nolan apparently lost interest in these individuals, but went on to study others with the same fMRI anomaly. Quoting now…

Dr. Garry Nolan: “What we found there was not something that allows some people to communicate with UFOs. I think the UFO community took a step too far. What I think we found is a form of higher functioning processing. Then… we looked at the families of those … index-case individuals and we found that it was actually in families. … We’ve now looked at about 200 random cases and we don’t see this area of higher connectivity. We only find it in individuals that Kit Green has called higher-functioning individuals… He called them savants… It turns out my family has it [the fMRI anomaly]… The reason why it seems to be [present] in so-called experiencers… if intuition is the ability to see something that other people don’t, I don’t mean that in a paranormal sense, but being able to see something that’s in front of you that other people might just dismiss, well, maybe that’s a function of a kind of higher intelligence….”

This is another Nolan Milestone for humanity, a physical commonality among UFO experiencers with neuro-physiologic relevance. This takes Ufology another step out of the unrealistic categorization as a “pseudoscience” and into the 21st Century of scientific objectivity.

And just to highlight Dr. Nolan’s objectivity, we see that he also goes with the data when it opposes the UFO community’s expectations…

At the top of this article is an X-ray image of the Atacama skeleton that Dr. Greer brought to many people’s attention, thinking that it is physical evidence of non-human intelligent life on Earth from the not-so-distant past. Dr. Nolan, God bless his objectivity and open-minded soul, studied it in his lab, consulted with experts, and describes the process at 47:40 on the video. Bottom line: Dr. Nolan considers the skeleton to be fully human but with a large number of bone-structure mutations in its DNA.

I applaud him for that, but things are never that simple for me…

After reviewing the paper, this quote jumps out of the Discussion section at me:

“Further, deep sequencing of the genome might reveal other phenotype-associated structural variations that are limited in the current analyses due to low coverage of the genome.”

What does this mean? Just how low is their “low coverage of the genome” in this paper?

If chimpanzee and human DNA are about 95% the same, would their “low coverage of the genome” be able to differentiate a human from a chimp? I’d like to know. Perhaps this paper’s conclusion, “it’s definitely human,” could have been strengthened or avoided altogether if they had used (as a non-human blinded control) the DNA of a Chimpanzee obtained from a 40-years-deceased, unpreserved Chimpanzee specimen. Controls are standard in science. If your conclusion is “this is definitely human DNA” then you need a non-human control to show whether or not Chimp DNA also appears to be “definitely human” when examined blindly in the same “low-coverage of the genome” laboratory circumstances.

I still admire Dr. Nolan immensely, and I’ll bet he could answer this question easily.

Quoting again from the paper’s Discussion:

“Taken together, it is entirely plausible that the chance combination of multiple known mutations and novel SNVs [single nucleotide variants as opposed to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)] identified here may explain Ata’s small stature, inappropriate rib count [ten], abnormal cranial features, and perceived advanced bone age. Given the size of the specimen and the severity of the mutations described above, it seems likely the specimen was a preterm birth.”

A couple of other questions come to mind:

  1. What local sources of mutation-inducing radiation or other influences could the gonads of this creature’s viable parents have been exposed to that produced such a huge number of novel mutations (outside of the SNP zones), known lethal mutations and devastating bone altering mutations? The paper suggests the answer is “nitrite mining” in the area and references this paper that doesn’t seem to back the claim. Instead, the paper says (in the abstract section): “The results showed that the frequency of structural chromosomal aberrations was not significantly higher in the drug-treated group than the control….” Hmm. If nitrite is a powerful enough mutagen to cause many rare and novel mutations in the Atacama skeleton’s chromosomes, you might think that patients who inhale nitrite as a medicine today would show significant chromosomal aberrations when compared to the normal controls. But no. The nuclei looked a little funny, but no chromosomal aberrations. It’s probably just my ignorance exposing itself again, right?
  2. Are the mutations located randomly throughout Ata’s chromosomes? I doubt this question can be answered with conditions that limit researchers to “low coverage of the genome.” But it would certainly be important to find out if truly random and powerful mutational forces were at work in South America just 40 years ago when this “fetus” with bones fused like a 6 or 7 year-old human child is said to have died in “preterm birth.” If not random mutational forces, then we’re back into a discussion of the Intelligent Design of DNA, not necessarily by a Supreme Being, but perhaps by whomever designs, builds and pilots the Navy’s well documented UFOs.

To me, Intelligent Design needs to be taken more seriously by the UFO community for obvious reasons, and taken entirely more seriously by secular materialist science because an advanced technology has now been undeniably documented on Earth, and if you deny all possibility that the intelligences behind UAPs are tampering with Earth’s DNA, well then…

“You’re wanting to take something off the table that might be an explanation. How is that the scientific method?” Garry Nolan, PhD

…

Spiritual Experiencer Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Joe Rogan is more valuable than mainstream “news”

29 Comments

I’m on day three of what I suspect is Omicron COVID, so I’m a little low on brain energy. I’ve home-tested negative for COVID twice, but I suspect they were false negatives because I’m using Betadine nasal spray fairly often each day to destroy the virus particles in the nasopharynx.

My symptoms are typical of Omicron infection. As described mainly outside the mainstream media, omicron (assuming I have it) hit me about like an average flu. Headaches, fever, chills, runny nose. The bugs are still struggling to give me a sore throat, but I’m discouraging that by locally “killing” them with Betadine sprayed directly on the back of my throat.

I’m also taking Ivermectin and many of the over-the-counter supplements recommended by those “evil misinformation” doctors who have bravely put their spectacular careers on the line by offering EARLY treatment to COVID patients, the only ethical and rational thing to do from a medical science perspective.

So I continue here encouraging you to please stop listening to mainstream news. Just about anything else is a better source of information. A TV tuned to static is better than CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc.

And once again, Russel Brand gets it.

In the video below, Brand shows how the mainstream media does the same thing they’re attacking Joe Rogan for doing: not revealing the financial bias of “experts.” In this case the mainstream experts turn out to be spokespersons for weapons manufacturers who make money on war and appear on TV “news” to tell us why another war is absolutely necessary now…

There are always two sides to an argument. Sometimes both sides have logical opposing points based on data that both sides see as valid. More often, however, each side has its own “data” and calls the other side’s data “misinformation,” precluding rational discussion. This makes it difficult for objective minds to grasp both sides of anything nowadays.

As the public grows weary of the media talking past the other side by denying their “facts” or by calling them racist and cancelling them, we naturally turn to better sources of information and opinion such as Joe Rogan, Russel Brand, and Richard Dolan.

Complex, nuanced arguments cannot be expressed, grasped or evaluated in 30 second sound bites. That “news” paradigm is over.

The complete dominance of mainstream “news” has ended. The “battle” is certainly not between Fox and CNN / MSNBC. ALL of the TV “news” outlets on both political sides are destroying democracy while claiming to do the opposite. We need to avoid them ALL as if they were toxic, because they are, in fact, toxic to democracy.

Their poison is the propaganda of rigid intolerance and outrage, ironically camouflaged in virtue signaling of tolerance and inclusion and/or respect for traditional values.

Your own personal political views are extremely valuable and should have an honest hearing no matter which side of politics you’re on. This is because each side of Western politics desperately needs the other side in order to hammer out wise long-term decisions, goals and laws.

But a person’s political views are valuable ONLY if they allow us to listen to the other side’s “data,” opinions and interpretations.

If your political attitude is “my way or the highway,” you’re part of the problem regardless of which side you’re on. Until everyone in the West grasps this concept, we will remain like children who have missed their naps. Angry, volatile, intolerant, and miserable.

Mainstream “news” is a for-profit business scam owned and controlled (on both sides) by big corporations that are themselves owned and controlled by a few super-wealthy share holders of behemoth funds, particularly BlackRock and Vanguard.

These big boys and big girls walk into a conference room and lay their cards on the table in front of the CEO: “Here’s my controlling interest in the corporation that owns your network. Here’s what you will say to the public. Obey and keep your job. Are we clear?”

This long tradition of public opinion molding by the super-rich is last week, dead and gone. The public has moved on to independent voices who don’t deal in sound bites and don’t profit financially from things like war and dividing the public.

…

Bipartisan Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Fighter Pilot’s analysis of US Government’s UFO/UAP videos

6 Comments

Chris Lehto was an F-16 Pilot for over 18 years in the US Airforce. He retired in 2020. He has always been a skeptic. Now that he has seen the 60 Minutes program on UFO’s and analyzed the US Government’s UFO/UAP videos carefully for himself, he says…

“I’m not going to lie, guys, I was a little rattled. You know, I kind of saw the videos before but, uh, I didn’t think it was… real. And now I’m like (shakes his head), I don’t know, it’s kind of blown me away. I mean if you can see them with radar, (so they’re reflecting radar energy ’cause they did pick them up on radar); you can see them with your eyes; you can see them with infra-red — then it’s there. Like something’s there. (shakes his head) I’ve just always been a cynic. Never believed anything. Seeing this now, it’s pretty wild. So what do I think they are? I’m going to think about it, and I will tell you next video.”

Regarding the quality of the Navy’s declassified videos, Chris Lehto writes:

“The data in the videos is actually pretty clear. The videos appear grainy because the wavelengths of light are longer in the infrared spectrum, but after 18 years of using our advanced fighter technology, the videos are unambiguous to me.”

If you know anyone who still doubts the reality of UFOs, do them a loving favor and email them a link to this fascinating video.

Chris Lehto, F-16 Fighter Pilot

Here’s a young man who’s risked his life and donated his youth to protecting you and me in the free world. If anyone is a hero in our era, this guy represents the archetype.

I’ve never asked you for anything like this before, but Chris deserves at least this: Please join me in supporting him financially on his Patreon account (for as little as one dollar a month). Here’s his link:

https://www.patreon.com/chrislehto

He has earned the free world’s generous financial support, mine and yours. Please be your usual generous self, the rewards of supporting the truth are great. Humanity needs a broader, truer perspective on its place in reality, especially now with the sabers rattling and the troops gathering under the command of sociopaths who rule nuclear-armed nations.

…

Real Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Big Brother attacks Joe Rogan BECAUSE he sees both sides

14 Comments

One agenda of the powerful who own the mainstream media (both sides) is to keep Republicans and Democrats feeling outraged and hateful. With mutual outrage and hatred properly maintained, we citizens can never join forces and vote in a non-career Congress that might actually end the mainstream “news” monopoly.

The most essential and vulnerable part of democracy is the freedom of the press. Without the free exchange of “facts,” voters cannot evaluate opinions intelligently or differentiate truth from error.

Our human brains are a bit like computers, like it or not. Free will is real, as are consciousness and personal identity, but let’s face it, whatever we fill our heads with will eventually become what we believe, trust, want, and “know” is right.

If, for instance, you’re an atheist who’s facing death and you really wish you could believe that your life will go on after this one ends, I guarantee you that listening to every near-death experience on YouTube will at least make you doubt the “scientific” materialist dogma you swallowed years ago along with its infectiously depressing worldview. You might even develop a spiritual faith of some sort. On the other hand, if you limit yourself to “scientific” materialist information, you will take your anti-faith worldview to the grave.

Or let’s say you doubt the reality of UFOs. I can virtually guarantee you that if you listen to the hundreds of personal testimonies of UFO/UAP experiencers available online, you will eventually believe in the undeniable reality of UFOs. If, on the other hand, you avoid those videos of personal testimony and expose your mind only to UFO skeptics (a shrinking breed), you will believe UFOs are somehow unreal, even if one lands in your backyard.

But here’s the thing: if you force yourself to watch the mainstream “news” outlet you hate most for a year or two, eventually, no matter your political bias, you will realize that all mainstream “news” outlets cannot be trusted to give a balanced view of anything, not even the weather.

And if you’d like a quicker rout to this valuable conclusion, here’s a video from a guy who’s trying his best to cut through the mainstream bias on both sides of politics. I think he’s doing a good job…

You can’t judge a book by its hair. Listen to Russell Brand, please.

…

Unbiased Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD