Episode 042 | Todays Science – Fact or Fiction
Hello again and a warm welcome to episode # 042 of Elmar´s Tooth Talk – The missing link to total health. I am Dr Elmar Jung.
So, before we start, let me tell you What’s in it for you in this episode.
We talk about:
- WHAT forms of scientific trials exist?
- WHAT the FDA requires to approve a drug
- WHAT are the flaws of double blinded randomised trials?
- HOW Richard Feynman looked at science?
- WHY should we listen to the government’s scientists?
- WHY we must not ask question?
- HOW Big Media and Big Tech make what to believe easy for you?
Is science absolute?
Is science absolute? Are scientists the new gods? Does science know it all? Should we believe EVERYTHING what scientists tell us? Where do they get their knowledge from?
What forms of scientific trials exist?
A few words about different forms of scientific trials.
The “gold-standard” of clinical research, the Randomised Control Trial, was created because it was assumed that patients could be easily influenced by the study organizers.
In an unblinded trial, both the patients and the doctors know who is getting the “real” drug and who is not.
In a “single-blinded” trial the patients are in the dark, but the doctors know who is getting actual medicine and who is getting placebo. In both cases, expectations can easily influence outcomes.
Patients are more likely to get benefit from something if they are told it is the real deal. And if doctors know who is swallowing the medicine instead of the sugar pill, they can influence the results in subtle, sometimes subconscious, ways.
In theory, if neither the doctors, nurses nor subjects know what is real and what is fake, there will be no influence and the outcome will be “pure.” That is the foundation upon which the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial system is built.
It sounds almost fool proof and for decades health professionals have held up the RCT as the highest standard of research – The Gold Standard. It is the epitome of “evidence-based medicine,” a mantra that means scientifically valid.
WHAT the FDA requires to approve a drug
The FDA requires at least two randomized controlled trials demonstrating statistically significant benefits before approving a drug for the market.
WHAT are the flaws?
What very few health professionals and the public have realized is that there are still some serious flaws with the randomized controlled trial system of drug testing.
The first one is that RCTs are overwhelmingly funded by Big Pharma, the prime group with a resource base large enough to afford them.
Marcia Angell MD, a past editor of one of the world’s most prestigious and generally pro-pharmaceutical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine, says that RCTs are often biased.
Dr Angell provides various reasons for this in her bestselling book, The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It.
Then there is the question of efficacy versus effectiveness.
Efficacy is the ability of an intervention to produce the desired beneficial effect in expert hands and under ideal circumstances”. That can be easily done in lab environment.
Effectiveness however is the ability of an intervention to produce the desired beneficial effect in actual usage, which is what happens in the real world.
Although RCTs are pretty good at establishing statistically significant benefits, they have traditionally not been good at predicting how well a particular treatment will work for any given individual.
What randomized controlled trials are not good at is detecting adverse drug reactions. And they don’t consider that most patients are on different drugs already and how this concoction will affect the individual patient.
Now, let’s have a closer look into this fascinating topic of science.
Richard Feynman’s look at science
If there were a Mount Rushmore to memorialize the greatest scientists in US history, Richard Feynman’s face would almost certainly be on the monument.
He was only 24 years of age when he was recruited into a secret research group that eventually became part of the Manhattan Project, joining some of the other most prominent scientists of his age, like Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi.
Feynman went on to make unparalleled advances in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics. He conceived of nanotechnology as early as the 1950s, and quantum computing as early as 1982.
Feynman also won the Nobel Prize, plus countless other awards, and medals; and he was ranked by leading scientists as one of the greatest physicists of all time– alongside Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Galileo.
In short, Feynman knew what he was talking about when it came to science.
One thing that was really interesting about Feynman is that, despite all of his success and credentials, he was the first to admit that nothing was truly certain and absolute, even in science:
“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”
Feynman railed against “myths and pseudoscience,” and the so-called experts that peddled their theories as unquestionable truth.
According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”
Or, as Isaac Asimov put it, “Science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel amongst themselves.”
Yet now we’re being force fed a narrative that science is absolute and 100% certain… and that, above all else, we must listen to the scientists.
Or, more precisely, we must listen to the scientists they want us to listen to.
WHY should we listen to the government’s scientists?
Well, we should listen to them because they supposedly know better.
For example, they know that biology no longer determines sex and that family as the bedrock of society is no longer necessary.
And we absolutely must listen to the scientists who tell us to cower in fear in our homes because of a virus.
We must listen to the scientists who say that unmasked Black Live Matters protestors packed together like sardines are not a danger to spreading the virus because of the righteousness of their cause.
We must listen to the scientists at the WHO that told us in March last year to NOT wear masks, and then, oops, just kidding, please do wear masks.
We must listen to the scientists who tell us that we need to keep our masks on, and then take their own masks off as soon as they’re no longer on camera.
We must listen to the scientists who tell us to cancel everything and not spend time with friends and family, who then themselves hop on a plane to visit their own friends and family.
We must listen to the scientists who agree that cannabis dispensaries, acupuncture clinics, and casinos are “essential businesses”, but masked worshippers six feet apart in churches and synagogues must be forced to stay home under threat of imprisonment.
We must listen to the scientists who tell us that the national debt doesn’t matter, and the government can simply print as much money as it wants and give out free money to everyone without any consequences ever.
We must listen to the scientists who tell us that standing on wet sand is safe but standing on dry sand will spread the Coronavirus.
We must listen to the scientists who tell us we need to do whatever it takes to prevent a single Covid death… but that deaths due to suicide, heart attack, and stroke are perfectly fine, and so are domestic violence, drug addiction, and depression.
And we must listen to the scientists who tell us that an unproven vaccine devoid of any long-term study is completely safe and effective.
Yes. Those are the scientists we must listen to.
Why we must not question?
They know it all and we don’t?
We are not supposed to listen to any scientists who voice concerns about Con-vid strategies, numbers of infection or death, or the efficacy of the so called vaccines.
We must not listen to scientists whose peer-reviewed research shows that Covid might not be as bad or as deadly as the media continues to portray.
No. We definitely must NOT listen to those scientists.
Because these scientists have fallen for conspiracies, fake news and hate speech.
How Big Media and Big Tech make what to believe easy for you?
And thank goodness we have Big Media and Big Tech who make it so easy for us to not listen to those scientists.
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and the likes have conveniently censored posts, prevented sharing, and even suspended the accounts of dangerous scientists who present new ideas or question old ones.
And the big media companies simply refuse to report on those stories altogether. How thoughtful of them to pre-determine for us, what we should see and what we should believe!
It’s clear the people who control the flow of information– Big Media and Big Tech– are deliberately shaping the story they want us to believe.
Forget Feynman. Their science is certainty. Their science is unassailably, 100%, absolutely true…
What if you dare to ask questions?
It looks like anyone who dares to question the certainty and sacredness of the mainstream science is ridiculed. The media calls any blasphemy a ‘hoax’ and chastises your ‘baseless assertions’.
And Twitter subjects you to the “Two Minutes Hate” ritual from Orwell’s “1984”
At this point we wonder what these people are so afraid of? What lies behind their smoke screens?
Why are they so terrified of anyone asking questions?
When you’re not allowed to question something, do we still talk about science? Or does it then become authoritarian propaganda?
Don’t you think it is time to question everyone and everything? Don’t you think it might be worth doing your own research?
Is this so-called pandemic and its cure really about our health? In the light of all evidence surfacing could one not be tempted to assume it never was about our health?
That it always was all smoke and mirrors? A Trojan horse even? A Trojan horse maybe to introduce a supposedly new era for humanity by distorting the truth, fear mongering and causing division?
Did they actually strip us of our fundamental human rights?
It might be time to shout a loud “Wake up for god’s sake!”
Are lockdowns, masks and social distancing really the holy grail to get us out of this misery. Have lockdowns or masks ever worked? And what about vaccinations?
Common sense however always works – providing you got some left.
I trust this episode will leave you with some more food for thought and please share the episodes wide and far with everyone you care about and assume has got some common sense left.
This is Elmar’s Tooth Talk – the missing link to Total Health.
Bye for now
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!