Quick Disclaimer

The following is a transcript of recorded content. Please note, these transcripts are not always perfect and may contain typos. If you notice any major mistakes, please feel free to report them by opening a Technical Support ticket under the Help menu at the top of the screen.

Full Transcript

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:00:08] My beloved science is in a crisis, a reproducibility crisis, a crisis of fraud, of epidemic proportions. Let’s go take a look in today. We’re going to be discussing bad science. We’re going to be talking about this. Masks do masks work at preventing COVID? Hey, maybe we got a new answer today. Today, we’re going to look at just shoddy science or bad science that answers or tries to answer that particular question. And of course, this got picked up and is all over the news right now. So this morning I wake up and I see this. I find that Maggie Fox, hey, look at Maggie down there. In theory, we’re in agreement because she says facts matter and truth is not liberal bias. I do health science tech in plain English, a lot of followers. So I’m hoping Maggie can get this right. And she quoted out here from this study that’s in a preprint rumor, that doesn’t mean as peer reviewed, but again, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything is we’re going to see later on. She writes here, quoting from the study, The probability of getting COVID 19 for mask wearers was 7%. For non mask wearers, probability was 52%. 769 people had retweeted that 1927 people had liked it. And that was just as of this morning. So what is this study?

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:01:17] Well, it’s this one title is The Efficacy of Face Masks in the Prevention of COVID 19, a systematic review. We can see the list of authors on there. They come from Hofstra. They come from a clinical medical library, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra and something called Health Care Partners IPA and meSo and Garden City, New York. Okay, so these are the people what did they find this abstract. They said face masks have become a symbol of disease prevention in the context of COVID 19. Yet. There still exist a paucity of collected scientific evidence surrounding their epidemiological efficacy in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This systematic review sought to analyze the efficacy of face masks, regardless of type on the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Hold on to that thought. In both health care and community settings. All right. Well, I mean, that’s a worthy study. I guess what they’re doing here is they’re reviewing other literature to see if they can combine that collected understanding to give us some deeper understanding. So what do they do? Well, let’s see. The initial review yielded 1732 studies they could have looked at, which were reviewed by three study team members. 61 full text studies were found to meet entry criteria, and 13 studies yielded data that was used in the final analysis. We’re going to have to see how they winnowed 1732 studies down to 13. You know, there’s a cherry picking is really a thing. So I’m going to be very curious which 13 they picked and how did they get there? This is instructive. Trust me, this is going somewhere. It’s important. In all, 243 subjects were identified with COVID 19, of whom 97 had been wearing masks and 146 had not. The probability, therefore, of getting COVID 19 for mask wearers was 7%, which is 97 divided by 1463. And I’m not sure. How they got those four, six, seven, 1300. I’m not sure how they got those numbers. It’s not clear from this description for non mask, whereas the probability was 52%, that was 158 out of 303. So the relative risk of getting COVID 19 for mask wearers was 0.13. Wow, that’s huge. 87% reduction in your chance of getting COVID if you wore a mask. Amazing. How did they do this study? At any rate, their conclusion is based on these study’s results, we reckon we determined that across health care and community settings, those who wore masks were less likely to contact. COVID 19. I think that’s supposed to be contract, but we’ll let it go. All right. So what did they do? Here’s a flow chart of their systematic review. I love this. First two boxes. A up top. They’re going to get my draw to all because it’s fun. I love, love this part. First records identified through database searching, 2730. Additional records identified through other sources. Zero. So that’s unnecessary flow box zero right there. That upper right one, not necessary. At any rate, records after duplicates were removed. They had 732 papers. Look at. That’s a big universe. They screen 1732, be excluded, 671. But you don’t know why. Full text articles assessed for eligibility with 61 excluded with reasons. So they they’re they just told us reasons and then finally they had 13 to look at what an astonishing whenever you see this in science you think shoddy right away because your criteria for inclusion and exclusion has to be absolutely rigorous, completely spelled out, completely transparent, because you can do a lot by combing through 1700 separate records and deciding these are the 13 that are going to tell the tale. You’re going to have to be very clear about how you went about that. They were not clear. All they said was the initial review yielded 1732 studies, which were reviewed, 61 full text studies were found to meet the criteria and 13 studies were used in the final analysis. That’s it. That’s all they said. I’m blessed. I don’t have a lot of clarity. So in other words, the pool of subjects was seven times smaller than the number of articles considered and rejected because reasons I have to repeat. It was reasons that was 1719 excluded studies, 243 COVID cases. Let’s keep going, though. Here are those 13 cherry picked studies. Let’s see what we got here.

[00:05:51] Okay. First up here, Chang in South Korea. They said site was a health care site. They had three people ended up infected out of 303. Okay. That one doesn’t didn’t jump out at me too much. How about this one from 2004? Wait a minute. Didn’t they tell us they were interested in looking on the influence of masks on SARS-CoV-2 transmission? You can’t pull a study from 2004. That’s just that should have been scratched out right there. So that’s weird. And then how about this one curve roulette in here? They said 11 subjects on a charter flight, all wearing masks with one positive case. But over here we see a number 20 in a zero. So I thought, is it one? Zero. Is it 20, is it 11? But the conclusion was low risk for transmission when wearing masks. So I like that’s kind of curious. Let’s go to that study. So here I find it. This is the career health study right here. Actually, it’s not a study. Actually, it’s a letter to a clinical practice journal. Actually, what they did here was they found they said what they do here, tracheotomy, mimic a hole in the throat is frequently indicated for patients with COVID 19 suffering from sayers. The French Army Biomedical Research Center provided our hospital with military masks equipped with P3 filter cartridges. So. Oh, what are they? They’re testing out these P3 cartridges on COVID patients. No, they don’t even mention COVID patients even once here, they say. They do say efficacy of these masks for SARS-CoV-2, protection has not been explored. Hmm. However, they did try these mask out and they said despite the use of an unaccustomed procedure, we perform toe tracheotomy without any complications. So they’re actually testing. Can you can you operate? You know, you got this big thing on your face and can you still perform a tracheotomy? They did that, but they weren’t doing them on COVID patients. So that’s a little weird. Here is they had some nice helpful images along with this. And yeah, I guess you would want to see if you could actually use that device while you’re performing surgery or tracheotomy. In this case, by the way, I didn’t cherry pick. That’s the whole research paper that they’re citing here. That’s the whole thing. There it is. It it’s on the single page. And what is it? It well, it doesn’t mention any flights. It doesn’t mention whether or not the patients even had COVID. They didn’t test for that. There’s no mention of the number 11 anywhere, no mention of any positive cases whatsoever. So how did they put their review together and come to the conclusion of a zero out of 20 with 11 subjects on a charter flight? Didn’t even mention a flight in here. I don’t even know what’s happening at this point in time. But the conclusion low risk for transmission when wearing a mask. So they got they got the conclusion. This is just bizarre. I’ve never seen anything quite this bizarre and and low fidelity. And my this is this is going to be a fun one to review. Stick with me. I’m going somewhere with this. Okay? This this is really actually important to your life and mine. Trust me, I’ll connect some dots.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:08:51] So then here’s the biggest study that they’ve got this one here. Syllabi this is in Turkey. So 47, remember, they only had 243 cases of COVID that were caught by people who weren’t wearing masks. 47 of them came from this one study. So this is a big one. And here they said risk factors included inappropriate use of personal protection equipment, PPE, while caring for COVID 19 patients and staying in a break room without a mask for 15 minutes. So this is big. This is important. Big study here says if you weren’t wearing a mask or you didn’t use your PPE, which is a mask as part of, then you got COVID very, very powerful study. So I like. Well in here. Before I get into that one, they had this other one go from 2020 against China. And the conclusion was not wearing an N95 respirator and severe fatigue were risk factors. So the question becomes, well, how many risk factors are we talking about in this particular case? So I’m going to tear into that’s the by study.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:09:52] But very quickly before I go there, I just want to tell you, if you need to find out where I am, you can follow me here. Take a screenshot of this, will post these down in the description below, but lots of different ways to begin following me. And the reason I’m telling you that is because of this little adventure right here, which I’ll let you read about. But we did get the story out of this YouTube channel, so that’s a very serious thing. It means, you know, three strikes, you’re out, the whole channel goes away. So I got to be very careful about what I can and can’t say. If you want to know what I actually really think about things where I can’t say like Driza-Bone, which is the drug which shall not be named or other things that I really what I really think obviously you can’t follow me here. So there’s also a part to or B, part B, it’s another segment of this particular video that’s going to come out a little later this week on this channel here on YouTube. But you can find everything always over there at Peak Prosperity, so you can whenever you want to see all of my stuff. There it is. And by the way, this is our most popular membership for people who do like to become members. Is the insider right here? And glad to say more and more people are joining up because they appreciate and enjoy this kind of information that I deliver. This is, I think, a very instructive reader testimonial. I’ll let Beverly tell it to us here. And she says, Thank you, Chris. Thank you so much for explaining these complicated issues in such an easy way to understand. You have a real talent for it, whether it’s a COVID research paper, a vaccine trial, oil reserves or just money markets, you always present the info in simple language with a full explanation. I can’t tell you how valuable this has been to me over the past two and a half years. I am better prepared, more knowledgeable, less anxious, more resilient than ever before, in large part because of the knowledge gained from you. You’re welcome, Beverly. That’s what I do. I’m here to help simplify this world and make it as easy as possible so that people can take action. Like Beverly, like you. Taking action is what really matters. So back to the story.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:11:54] Remember I said we’re going to take a closer look at this study here. So this one here that had 47 sorry, 47, this one here, 47 out of 243 were these other risk factors. So we look at this in first thing we find out is, well, how did they identify if somebody even had SARS-CoV-2 out of those, you know, the 40 some people who ended up with SARS-CoV-2, it’s because they took upper respiratory samples. And if you had a cycle threshold value of 37 or less than 38, that was defined as a positive test result. You and I both know maybe that might have made sense back there in August of 2020, but today nobody would ever consider a single threshold of 37 to be indicative of an active infection. And it’s probably very high chance of it being a false positive or a meaningless positive up at that point. So that was part one. But part two is I don’t think it’s a bad study that they did here, but how many risk factors? So look what they did here in trying to determine here are all the cases they found, 47 cases of people who did come down with a cycle threshold of 37 or less against a bunch of people who didn’t their controls of 134. But it wasn’t just they weren’t looking just at masks. They were sifting through every possible variable they could think of. So here we see out of these 47, seven people were medical doctors, 28 were nurses, 12 were cleaning personnel. 16 of that whole total cohort had some sort of an underlying disorder. Ten of them were at the presence of a health care worker in their own household. Three of them had presence of SARS-CoV-2 positive person in the household, 25 of them presence of SARS-CoV-2 positive person within the occupational or social surroundings or this or this or let’s keep going. These were all the risk factors they looked at. Did you examine or touch a suspected or confirmed case in the patient? There’s a yes. Obtaining a respiratory sample. Did you do that kind of a risky procedure? Yes. Intubating a subject. Very risky procedure. Did you do that? How about this, this, this, these. So anyway, there’s there’s 14 separate risk factors in here, of which wearing a mask was one. So so in this all critical study here, which had basically this is one fifth of all the reported cases in this study where they sifted through, found 13 studies. I don’t know why one one was those people performing tracheotomy and gas masks. It didn’t even mention COVID weird that you had 1700 studies typical I from and you chose that one weird. Anyway this was one fifth of nearly all reported cases and they say, well, risk factors included. Inappropriate use of PGP. It’s true. They also included lots and lots of other things, including, let’s see. Making a mistake while implementing infection control precautions or staying in that break room or entering ICU room or resuscitating a patient. Anyway, there were 14 risk factors. No possible way to determine which of these was more important than the others. This is just the kind of study that says here are some things we think might be important if a signal sort of loosely pops out, you’d want to look at that more completely. Anyway, that’s how they did this study. They just slapped it right in there and said, Yeah, one fifth of the reported cases we’re going to report on came from this this one study. All right. I’ll tell you what, I, too, am absolutely howling that anyone could share this preprint on mask wearing. This is what Alistair Munro said today. He said, I pray they simply didn’t bother reading it before promoting it as this genuinely the least worrying explanation. A new low for COVID Twitter.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:15:34] Yes, it is. So, okay, we’re all done here. There’s not much more I can tell you about this particular study. By the way, this is what we’re going to look at in the second segment here today. Alzheimer’s research. This is serious, folks. And by the way, this reflects back on all the other things that have just happened to us in terms of evidence being suppressed, evidence being diminished, other evidence being elevated. We’re going to go through all of it. But it speaks to this one problem.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:16:00] We have a giant crisis in our science and medical system at this point in time is if you didn’t already know that, but now it’s being really laid bare. We’ve got to fix this. It needs fixing. It has to be fixed. Otherwise nothing ever gets better. All right. What is this bombshell? So this is reported here in science dot org. Great article here by Charles Piller. This is really actually phenomenal. And it’s a sad, sad tale. So blots on a field great title. I’ll tell you why. What that means, a neuroscience image sleuths. Sleuths find signs of fabrication in scores of Alzheimer’s articles threatening a reigning theory of the disease. Terrible disease. Last thing we needed was some really bad, fraudulent science, taking us off in a wrong direction where time and effort is wasted when it could have been spent productively. Quote Schrag is the is the sleuth here, but and I cut out a little of the article to kind of start in the middle. But Schrag sleuthing drew him into a different episode of possible misconduct, leading to findings that threaten one of the most cited Alzheimer’s studies of the century and numerous related experiments. The first author of that influential study published in Nature in 2006 was an ascending neuroscientist, Sylvain LOCKNEY of the University of Minnesota Human Twin Cities. His work underpins a key element of the dominant, yet controversial amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s. Talk about what that means in a second, which holds that alpha beta clumps alpha beta clumps, known as plaques in brain tissue, are a primary cause of the devastating illness, which afflicts tens of millions globally in what looked like a smoking gun for the theory and a lead to possible therapies, Wazni and his colleagues discovered that an a beta subtype seemed to prove it cause dimension rats. If Schrag doubts are correct wasn’t his findings were an elaborate mirage. So this is the paper 2006 March. A specific amyloid beta protein assembly in the brain impairs memory. We see on here a number of names. First author Sylvain Le Snide. That would be the lead author position, the first author position, and then the lead down here by Karen Ash. Two names we’re going to hear a little bit more about in a second. This is explosive. It shows that how even exceedingly well-regarded nature is like that’s allegedly the preeminent journals. It’s like saying The Lancet or in the New England Journal of Medicine, words that actually meant a lot more a couple of years ago. I realize today those names are all kind of trashed, but for the same exact problem that we’re about to talk through here. And this speaks to the idea that when people are trying to beat down other people saying, oh, you know, you can’t just do your own research. We have to trust doctors. We have to trust we have to trust peer review what we do. If it works, okay, if it doesn’t work, then we have other problems on our hands here. It didn’t work. So I’m can’t wait to see what the response is, by the way, as of the 14th of July. An editor’s note had been amended to this article. By nature, reading, the editors of Nature have been alerted to concerns regarding some of the figures in this paper. Nature is investigating these concerns, and a further editorial response will follow as soon as possible. In the meantime, readers are advised to use caution when using results reported there in, end quote. Huh? Well, at least they put a warning on there, but they haven’t taken the step of pulling it down. I think they actually should have taken that step. Let’s go through this. So from this same article in science dot org quote In the brains of Ashes Transgenic Mice, the human team discovered a previously unknown oligomer species dubbed a B star amyloid beta star 56 after its relatively heavy molecular weight compared with other oligomers. So alpha sorry. Amyloid beta is just a protein. It weighs 56 kilo Daltons. That’s a measure of its of its weight and and the transgenic mice means they took mice and they changed their genome so that the offspring would actually express something. This is what the humanized mice were that they were using in Wuhan in order to investigate coronaviruses. You take the mice and you can change them. So they did that and they had them overproduce this amyloid beta star 56 protein. It’s just it’s a protein. Quote, the group isolated AB star 56 and injected it into young rats. The rats capacity to recall simple previously learned information such as the location of a hidden platform in a maze plummeted. The 26 papers first author, sometimes credited as the discoverer of AB Star 56, was Liz Nay, a young scientist Ashe had hired straight out of a Ph.D. program at the University of Keen Normandy in France. Hmm. Okay. Starting to get a sense of the cast of characters here. Now, just so we were all on the same path here with Alzheimer’s. When you look at the brains of deceased, obviously Alzheimer’s patients look in there, you see these things called plaques. Then the plaques are just these places of really dense staining. And when you look down deeper in, there’s all these amyloid beta proteins and other components. It’s just composed of a big smush of proteins. And so the question is, are these? Correlated or causative. When people get Alzheimer’s, do these things show up because it’s correlated with it or these things show up and cause the Alzheimer’s. That was the question. This paper in 2006 seemed to show that what was happening here was that the. Amyloid beta star 56 protein is the one that was causing this because they injected that into the mice or the rat model. And so the rats then had what looked to be pretty consistent with Alzheimer’s neurocognitive impairments. Great. That’s how science works often.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:21:58] So before we continue on with that story very quickly, you can always follow me here. This is where you find me. Take a screenshot. We put all of these down in the descriptions as well. We do advise people. If you want to be sure not to lose track of me, come on over to Peak Prosperity. You can come and become a member if you like. And the reasons are because sometimes we get censored. But also, I heard just this week again from people who said that they are unsubscribed multiple times from this channel. It’s part of the shadow banning that I face constantly. And so if you’re experiencing that, remember to resubscribe remember to hit the like button. Those all help us here as well. Our readers really do like to point out that they get a lot from this channel and a lot from the work that I promote. And as well we’ve got a great community. So these people who are my subscribers, they’re actually more than that. They are tribe members. We are part of the remnant. We are the people who just well, we can deal with logic and we can deal with common sense and we still have a sense of humor. So all those things come on by. Check out Peak Prosperity if you want. All right.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:23:03] So carrying on in purple down below, quote, ash touted amyloid beta star 56 on our website as the first substance ever identified in brain tissue in Alzheimer’s research that has been shown to cause memory impairment. The first substance ever identified that shows memory impairment. That’s a big deal, right? That’s a really big deal. An accompanying editorial in nature called Alpha sorry, amyloid beta star 56, a star suspect in Alzheimer’s ALS Forum, a widely read online hub for the field titled its coverage Alpha Beta Star is born or Amyloid Beta Star is born. Less than two weeks after the paper was published, Ashe won the prestigious Potemkin Prize for Neuroscience, partly for work leading to. Amyloid Beta Star 56. Ooh. There’s a lot of ego. There’s money, there’s prestige, there’s a lot on the line. And so when people have a lot on the line, you know, the desire to cut corners, maybe big. The study tortured a little until it tells the data that you want to tell. Sometimes you’re just a true believer. You know that. You’re right. You know, it didn’t. Your studies just aren’t quite conforming to what you know is right. So, you know, you tweak the data a little bit, make it look a little bit better. Sometimes it’s just a big company with giant financial interests. All right. That’s what happens. So heavy spending resulted from that 2006 paper, the nature paper. It’s been cited in about 2300 scholarly articles. That’s a lot of of influence, more than all but for other Alzheimer’s basic research reports published since 2006, according to the Web, a science database, and since then, annual NIH support for studies labeled amyloid oligomer and Alzheimer’s has risen from nearly 0 to $287 million in 2021, let’s say. And Ash helped spark that explosion, experts say. Well, I’ll say that’s how science works. These people come out, peer reviewed study says we have this substance, we put it into rats and it creates Alzheimer’s. That’s it. We got to find a way to block that thing from doing what it’s doing. And that’s how science works. So this is actually what scientific fraud looks like and here’s how it happens. So this is a a gel blot here. And so what happens is these are all different lanes and gel electrophoresis. And you you put a sample in and you apply an electric current to it and these things migrate down and then they resolve into these discrete bands by weight. Okay, so what’s the problem? This is like a blob here, right? Well, so what happened was Ash uploaded this particular. Western blot to PUBG Pure. After Schrag said the version published in Nature showed cut marks. Suggesting improper tampering with bands. So these are the bands down here in question. So we know the cut marks in response. Ash, this researcher uploaded this version and he said, even with this version, check this out. These this is what it looks like. Normally you see like see these over here. Take a look at these on the far side right there. Those. You see how they’re different. You look at from the top end of the bottom, you can just by you can see slight differences. But in that red box there, if you look at these bands, even though this one looks a little darker on the bottom than on the top, you can see, look at this, they’re actually kind of the same. They look the same. They never look exactly the same. So you bring in some studies on those and just did a little image analysis and said, okay, if we calculate the similarity, those bands on there had a similarity plot that look like this, which is almost it’s almost dead identical. And this is what a normal plot should look like. If you had two dissimilar bands like these two right here, they just don’t look quite the same. You should get these butterfly patterns, butterfly wings or dragonfly wing patterns, at any rate. Clear, unmistakable sign of fraud. But by the way, this is after earlier fraud and had been corrected with a new image uploaded. The problem is, none of these images support the actual conclusions of the papers. They’re fraudulent and they’re made up. All right. So continuing on with this awesome article in science dot org, we have a six month investigation by science provided strong support for Schrag suspicions. That’s what we do. We reproduce things in science. Schrag said, Hey, I found this stuff. Here’s my data. My data kind of looks like this, and science makes it. Well, maybe we should look at that too. And they did. So they did a six month study. And it also raised questions about Lesnar’s research, a leading independent imaging analyst and several top Alzheimer’s researchers, including George Perry of the University of Texas and Antonio, John Forsyth of the University of California, San Francisco reviewed most or shrugs findings at science’s request. They concurred with his overall conclusions, which cast doubt on hundreds of images, including more than 70 and less newspapers. Some look like shockingly blatant examples of image tampering, says Donna Wilcock, an Alzheimer’s expert at the University of Kentucky. The authors appear. You have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments, says Elizabeth Vick, a molecular biologist, well-known forensic image consultant. The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to better fit a hypothesis. End quote.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:28:33] Yeah, that’s called fraud. It’s just out now. Fraud and very bad fraud because this impacts humans, research other people’s lives. And of course, all the loved ones of people are suffering from Alzheimer’s. And then the people who have Alzheimer’s themselves. Everybody gets defrauded by this process. And that’s why it’s so egregious and why we should care. And we should care because this isn’t an isolated example. This happens over and over and over again. By the way, University of Minnesota still proudly lists Sylvan listening. That’s who he is, of course. He was hired in by this woman, Karen Ash. You can see here, look at the pedigree, B.A. from Harvard and then University of California and Harvard Medical School. On and on. So this is somebody who’s been very, very focused on success for her whole career. And I don’t have any explanation for uploading a second set of defrauding images, except either you’ve been defrauded yourself and you weren’t smart enough to know that or you’re part of it. Very hard to tell who the actual bad person is in this. So fraud has consequences. We all know about the thoroughness case where Elizabeth Holmes defrauded billions and billions of dollars out of people, had amazing people on her board of directors, Henry Kissinger was on there, etc., and did that using bad science and fraudulent science. And so this had very real impacts financially there and as well based on that. Amyloid beta star six protein. A monoclonal antibody was targeted against that. And guess what? That really didn’t work in clinical trials. It didn’t work at all. And that became something called that. Monoclonal antibody is now a drug, $56,000 a year. It’s called aduhelm. It’s put out by Biogen. And I reported on this on June 11, 2021 months before any of this stuff came out about the fraud that was underpinning all of this. And to me, it just struck me really the serious consequences. But this really stood out for me where we saw that a third member of a panel of outside advisers to the U.S. FDA resigned in protest over the agency’s decision to approve biogen’s Alzheimer’s disease treatment, despite the committee’s recommendations against doing so. So this offended me on multiple levels. First, the studies were awful because it not only didn’t work, but when they dialed up the dose to see if they could make it work at a higher dose, all that happened was they caused brain swelling and bleeding in patients. This is very serious, folks. And despite all of that, the FDA overrode their own expert panel and approved this drug. Why? Well, the only conclusion I can come to is that the FDA is not actually in the business of properly regulating or caring about food drug. Health patients. Any of that. They obviously serve a very different master and a very different set of needs. But it all begins with torturing. The basic science is the first starting point. So this was bad. So I reported on that a while ago. Now we have a dot to connect back to this. Okay. So in nature itself in 2016. They talk about this this reproducibility crisis we have in science right now. So we have this massive science crisis. Quote, 1500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce and other scientists experiments and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. What also topped 70% couldn’t reproduce in other scientists experiments.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:32:11] That’s a crisis, folks. And so when we hear, well, is that peer reviewed? Is it a randomized controlled trial? Is it, you know, as if there’s some gold standard of of excellence, that once you get past that, all the dirty stuff falls away? And that’s actually not the case. We should always be vigilant. We should always understand that conflicts of interest matter and repeat that conflicts of interest matter. And when people are conflicted, either through their own ego or their own sense of funding, through their own sense of social standing, because they were traumatized as children and they don’t know how to be wrong. Whatever the story is, people have their interests, which they will guard very carefully. And sometimes those conflict with what we would call the truth or science. But the idea that we have some version of science that’s pristine. Peer reviewed science, it should be pristine, but it’s really not. So let’s carry on. Love this John Unitas, who just continues to to rocket more. I look into his career the more he’s just made. I think some of the most positive, beneficial additions to science. True scientists and a gentleman. Back in August of 2005, he made a big splash with this particular finding here. Where was summary? Quote, There’s increasing concern that most most most current research published published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study, power and bias. The number of other studies on the same question and importantly, the ratio of true to know relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when we skip a few things. There is greater financial and other interest in President’s press prejudice. Sorry. So that that’s a key finding. I mean, obviously if there is financial interest. This is what happens. So pay no attention. Recently we heard about how SARS-CoV-2 must have come from a wet market in Wuhan. And one of the key authors on that paper is a person named Christian Andersen. Who? Just received an $8.9 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Yada, yada. Right. There’s there’s heavy, heavy, heavy conflicts of interest here that always have to be understood, always, always have to be understood. All right, Ian Green. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. Oh, you saw the first segment I produced on this unmasked. You saw some people who clearly had a strong bias. They wanted to show that masks worked. They cherry picked like crazy and couldn’t even find enough representative awesome studies that they had to take one and then mischaracterize its findings like they did with that whole idea of the tracheotomy and the plane ride in tow. If you haven’t seen that episode, take a look. But huge, huge errors in that one. So again. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. All right. That’s what that looks like. And by the way, remember this. Remember this? Dr. Fauci, this is back. I did this on day 97 of my reporting on April 29th of 2020 for COVID. I pulled this up and was really disturbed by what I saw here because Fauci says data from Remdesivir coronavirus drug trial shows quite good news. But when I looked at the study, I couldn’t find that good news, right? And on April 30th, here we see that the headlines came out. Remdesivir instantly became standard of care for COVID 19. How did that happen? Because they noted that patients recovered faster than did similar patients who received placebo on the basis of as yet unpublished data. Remdesivir will be the standard of care for patients with COVID 19, says Anthony Fauci. The problem I had is when I got my hands on this on the study and I looked at it, here was the study that they were referring to. China had also done a study and they were very comparable, both randomized, double blind, both of them used roughly the same dosing. There are exactly the same dosing. They also had placebos in there. They used 7.1 versus six point scales to measure what they were looking for in terms of a good clinical endpoint. Is this good or bad? They tested for upper viral loads on the Nyad study, but China tested both upper and lower respiratory viral loads, 15 day end point versus a 28 day endpoint. But oops. The Nyad study noted very significant clinical improvement, whereas the China study noted no significant clinical improvement. That bothered me. This is on record. This is what I was putting out in April of 2020. It was a lack of reproducibility, is what caught my eyes while I was very skeptical at that point in time, because one of those two studies is wrong and we need to find out which one and why. But it was too much for me to suspect that. Then I’d had got it all correct. That reproducibility problem was a big deal. Plus they changed the endpoints. It did other things. It was there was a lot of problems with that study. So now we know that actually the skepticism I had about that back then, it was absolutely correct. And right now, a lot of damage happened because something happened in that trial which showed very significant clinical improvement when that wasn’t borne out in any future. Subsequent studies of people who are already in the hospital with serious COVID course couldn’t. So an antiviral. Once people are on ventilators, antivirals don’t help. We knew that then somehow it wasn’t known with the conflicts of interest that existed out there across all of this. All right. What we’re going to do is go now to my website. We’re going to be talking about the power of self-delusion, the wisdom of the few, because this problem I’ve just articulated is now all over the news. So we listen, we got to track it. Very serious things are going on. And it’s all rooted in people in power who hold the wrong view. Their biases, their conflicts of interest militate against them coming to rational conclusions for the benefit of the many. Instead, we find very self-interested conclusions for the benefit of the few. It’s going to have huge impacts on your future.

[00:38:15] Come on by Peak Prosperity to check it out and we’ll talk about it more there. See you there.