Wow, this post covers a lot of ground, thanks, Jamie.
One major step toward achieving Science 2.0 is what you and others are currently doing, and that is to correct the public's misperceptions regarding the nature of "disease" and its causes.
The great bulk of Science 1.0 experimentation that is done is based on flawed and incorrect disease model premises. And is unnecessary.
If the NIH and Big Pharma were to close their doors, would overall human (and animal) health improve?
When working in Big Pharma, we received daily corporate propaganda newsletters- my impression from those was that if our sales force didn't bribe doctors (the actual "customers" of Big Pharma) with free samples, and get government subsidies for our products (e.g. Medicare/Medicaid,) we would go out of business, because our products did not offer a benefit that people would willingly pay for.
On R&D, yes, one great surprise upon entering Big Pharma after 15 yrs in academic research, was discovering that Big Pharma had no R&D, but, instead, relied almost entirely on published results from publicly funded scientific research (mostly NIH.)
On reproducibility, when tested, the percentage of scientific project results that were reproducible (a critical aspect of science- what good is a recipe that turns out different each time,) was in the mid-teens for projects published in high impact journals (in other words, supposedly the best experiments.) I've worked with many good scientists, but a great many more who were not.
But the greater problem is not personnel, but it is because science now is kit and technology (machine) driven. Kits are black boxes to most (Add powder A, add powder B, add power C, etc.) so if the user doesn't even know what components are being used, how does one possibly troubleshoot experiments (and all experiments require extensive troubleshooting.)
The technology aspect is even worse- machines which nobody understands how they physically measure results that use software that few are properly trained on (each manufacturer has their own proprietary software, and have high training costs which most lab PI's cannot afford.
Fantastic reply David, It is really useful to have corroborated the story by people who have lived the experience. Is it OK to share your comment on Substack Notes?
Bring on Science 2.0! Just the other day I was having a chat with my neighbour about the ‘bird flu’ hysteria (rumblings about registering backyard chickens here, in rural Australia). She knows that it’s all a beat up to control the food supply but still thinks there’s a virus. I had to leave to feed my chickens haha, but I said to her, next time we chat I’ll tell you about how they claim to ‘isolate’ what they call viruses, which I now have down pat thanks to a loosely affiliated team of brilliant Science 2.0 teachers around the world. I’m forever grateful 🙏
Please include your link for donations, I’m subscribed but not seeing the ability to pay for my subscription. Usually there will be a manage option and I’m not seeing it.
It is weird because on some accounts it gives you the option to upgrade in a button... it is like that with large accounts for me... but for smaller accounts there is no button...it doesn't seem to be anything I can change.
It seems you have to go into settings and do it through there...
"All of the content that is put out on this Substack is going to be for free. If you feel so inclined to donate or Sign up for a Paid Subscription that is very much appreciated. It will keep me writing, putting out content and continuing the largest Control Studies Project falsifying Virology. Upgrade to paid" (red button)
So I did!
Or, once Jamie’s Substack opens up, try clicking the mysterious green button (top right) and scroll down to "manage subscription"...
Crowd sourcing funds is obviously limited to the amount of public interest there is on a topic - most people will only donate and depart with a portion of their money if it is likely to have a beneficial impact on their lives in some respect, especially if they have very little money to begin with as is the case with the majority of the population.
For example, the pandemic created huge public interest in virology so crowd sourcing funds for the controls has been somewhat successful. So in areas of science which have little to zero practical application to the average person's life, crowd sourcing is not likely to be as successful and science 2.0 is unlikely to venture in those directions and conduct experiments relating to those topics.
This is ,however, not necessarily a bad thing for the reasons you have already stated namely:
1) a large portion of science today is not useful to the average person and is there to just fortify the trust and belief in "The Science" and convey more authority to its priests, the white coats - the genetically modified purple haired rat is an example of this.
2) there will be a lot less scientific experimenting going on but there will be far more useful results being produced.
But doesn't this mean that science will still mostly be conducted where there is already money and only where there is money to be made?
For example, where a section of industry suspects that the practices they follow are ultimately harmful to the end users of their products, they are not likely to fund any experiements that will shed light on these facts. For example farmers using a certain pesticide. Despite the fact that these farmers have intimate knowledge of the pesticide, its ingredients and how it's used, and could group together and easily fund experiments determining whether the pesticide was in fact harmful, they in the interest of profits decide not to fund experiments or prevent any public attention being drawn to the issue.
This means that until such time as enough of the public has been harmed by these practices and enough interest and suspicion has been raised in the wider public to generate funds to undertake the necessary experiements to prove that it is that specific practice causing harm, Noone is going to carry out those experiments because of a lack of knowledge, incentive, interest and ultimately funds? Essentially, the science 2.0 model and crowd funding seems to only allow for reactionary science and not a proactive approach. How does science 2.0 work in these situations?
Hi Mia, Thank you for your detailed response, support and question.
Yes that is the true power of The Free Market in its simplicity, sorting what is necessary from unnecessary through demand... the people's blockchain.
In the case of pesticides use in Agriculture. It is already a given that A. Pesticides are poisonous
B. The farmers that use poisons on their product work for the State.
There needs to be no scientific experiment to show this, it is self evident.
We actually also have precedent that the opposite is more desirable in that "Organic" produce is worth more.
Where Science 2.0 could benefit these areas to decentralise modern agriculture further is to conduct experiments looking at the positive attributes to organic farming methods.
Just off the top of my head.... it could be interesting to conduct an actual controlled study of electroculture for instance... lots of people do DIY jobs of this.. but if you managed to show that pests could be reduced without pesticides and crops grew just as good or better... you have benefited the market and I expect it to be a profitable experiment.
No problem, thanks for taking the time to read and answer my question with such patience.
I think what you have said makes a lot of sense, except that us knowing pesticides are bad has not stop farmers from using them. Just like despite a lot of us knowing viruses are bogus, you have been forced to crowd fund experiments to prove to the authorities that they have no standing to enforce vaccine mandates and lockdowns. I mean for a lot of us just reading the methodology employed for the proof of viruses was enough to know there was no proof but this is not enough to avoid these things enforced by government. The results of the control experiments are undoubtedly the best way to avoid future mandates and lockdowns us knowing or even having precedents is not enough.
It seems that we would need to be able to produce similar experiments and results re pesticides in order to enforce a ban on things like glysophate - even though it really should be obvious and shouldn't be necessary to undertake experiments (just like with viruses). But how do we get enough public interest to fund these experiments before substantial harm is caused (even though I rate this harm has already occurred) ?
I agree the experiment you mentioned would be interesting but how do we get enough funding to do it in a way that will 1) gain the attention of the agricultural industry and 2) lead to a substantial prohibition of these poisons? It seems like we always have to wait untill substantial widespread harm is caused before we will have enough interest to fund the necessary science.
Do you think you would have received the same amount of donations for your control experiments prior to the pandemic? Say in 2019? Even with the lockdowns and mandates and job losses world wide, have you yet to receive enough funds to do all the controls you need to do re virology?
In any event, my question wasn't so much focused on the problems with agriculture, it was merely an example (probably not a good one in hindsight). But rather my question related to how do we nip certain harmful practices in the bud, before they do substantial harm? How do we fund scientific experiments before there is a dire need for them? How does science 2.0 prevent things from taking place? How do we fund necessary experiments before there is sufficient public interests to do so? For example, how would the science 2.0 model have got sufficient funding to under take the controls re virology prior to 2020.
Sorry forgot to reply about the funding for the project. So many people have been so generous. We have made enough to get alot of the things we wanted to do done.
We are trying to get a lab together to work on it full time. Hopefully Steve Kirsch coughs up his bet money if we assemble the Sars Cov 2 genome 😂😂
Well firstly I wouldn't say that this is going to happen over night. The results of the project are not going to halt a 3bn$ vaccine industry next week 😂😂. That will take a long time.
I think you are looking at this through slightly the wrong lens. You are never going BAN everything bad... if you BAN anything i.e write laws against stuff you are encouraging authoritarianism and hence the State which is how we ended up in this mess.
Pharmers will use glypphosate,DDT whatever because they are paid to use it...just the same as large swathes of the population will continue to inject themselves with poisons and eat horse dewormer... because they are thick as shit.
What we are trying to do is encourage a different way of living, the more that join in, the easier it becomes. I think a lot of people would prefer organically grown food it is just harder to come by and more expensive. The more people that join in the easier it becomes to access the good things in life, built on am infrastructure of the free market rather than authoritarian state control.
This really is a talking point of Anracho-Capitalism, Voluntarianism. There are plenty of resources out there of people who write on these principles... I can send you some things if you would like
It's an interesting topic. I follow a group on telegram where people eat organic food but without processing - without cooking, baking and similar procedures. In short, it is best to eat raw meat, milk, eggs and fruit (and tomatoes, cucumbers), honey. Interestingly, there is a withdrawal of symptoms such as diarrhea, heartburn...I haven't read everything, but this is what users report on their personal example. I am e.g. managed to reduce "nervous bowels" and two-year diarrhea by almost 100% with one cucumber a day, and the rest I eat processed food.
As not very favorable ie. harder-to-digest foods are listed e.g. potatoes, peas, beans and the like because they have to be processed in order to be eaten.
Absolutely brilliant. The Citadel is the problem. Group think and an abandonment of the scientific method, replaces with money, and the censorship that funding suppression allows. . This is why for me the need for a rigorous adoption of two colour model (DATA / MODEL) is essential.
Was delighted that Sasha referred to it as her favourite definition of science. This essay makes the case that this is nothing to do with me. I’m not pushing for recognition because the fact that I’ve pointed to is so basic.
Hi Tim, I’m glad that you have seen this. I was going to tag you - I thought you’d be excited that someone is trying to sort the green stuff from the pink stuff. 😊
Yes indeed. Loving the work Jamie is doing. Even if he had stopped and hung up his boots after the control experiments it would have been massive.
Like me he seems to have set his aims at a root level. Instead of constantly firefighting pseudoscience examples, put the house in order so they aren’t actively en€ouraged.
Decentralisation is the way. Group think is a huge danger. Loads of people sharing the same Brown Stuff.
A 'philosouffle recipe' containing the ingredients of integrity, responsibility, accountability, transparency, and heart-guided intention will surely rise appreciably to free market expectations.
What could go wrong? . . but then at least we'd know why.
The proof will be in the pudding. I'm all for trying. Wonderful concept nicely explained Jamie !
The joke was that science (the scientific method) does not (necessarily) require fancy lab equipment, but science fraud usually does.
For example, contagion can be disproven with a bucket of snot (Rosenau etc). Disproving contagion with such crude (but scientifically valid) experiments also disproves 'contagious viruses'.
By contrast, to fake 'contagious viruses' requires lots of fancy and expensive equipment.... the sort of equipment which lends itself to highly centralised science and which is unavailable to more honest, independent scientists who are not being subsidised by Bill Gates or Big Pharma.
Here's another example relevant to 'covid'...... The contagion data set which was used to dictate government policy at the start of 2020 was created not by exposing healthy people to sick people, but by tracking 30,000 specially commissioned smartphone apps in an experiment by the BBC (Gates funded), Cambridge University (Gates funded) and LSHTM (Gates funded). This experiment presumably cost millions but it involved no biology whatsoever and could fairly be described as an elaborate and audacious (and expensive) act of science fraud - as humorously explained in this video...
We've seen the same dynamic play out with armchair/ street journalists and researchers with nothing but an smartphone and an internet connection outcompete the multi million dollar media giants who have whole buildings full of researchers, studios and editing suites.
What really matters is having integrity, not money :)
Wow, this post covers a lot of ground, thanks, Jamie.
One major step toward achieving Science 2.0 is what you and others are currently doing, and that is to correct the public's misperceptions regarding the nature of "disease" and its causes.
The great bulk of Science 1.0 experimentation that is done is based on flawed and incorrect disease model premises. And is unnecessary.
If the NIH and Big Pharma were to close their doors, would overall human (and animal) health improve?
When working in Big Pharma, we received daily corporate propaganda newsletters- my impression from those was that if our sales force didn't bribe doctors (the actual "customers" of Big Pharma) with free samples, and get government subsidies for our products (e.g. Medicare/Medicaid,) we would go out of business, because our products did not offer a benefit that people would willingly pay for.
On R&D, yes, one great surprise upon entering Big Pharma after 15 yrs in academic research, was discovering that Big Pharma had no R&D, but, instead, relied almost entirely on published results from publicly funded scientific research (mostly NIH.)
On reproducibility, when tested, the percentage of scientific project results that were reproducible (a critical aspect of science- what good is a recipe that turns out different each time,) was in the mid-teens for projects published in high impact journals (in other words, supposedly the best experiments.) I've worked with many good scientists, but a great many more who were not.
But the greater problem is not personnel, but it is because science now is kit and technology (machine) driven. Kits are black boxes to most (Add powder A, add powder B, add power C, etc.) so if the user doesn't even know what components are being used, how does one possibly troubleshoot experiments (and all experiments require extensive troubleshooting.)
The technology aspect is even worse- machines which nobody understands how they physically measure results that use software that few are properly trained on (each manufacturer has their own proprietary software, and have high training costs which most lab PI's cannot afford.
Science 1.0 is ugly.
Fantastic reply David, It is really useful to have corroborated the story by people who have lived the experience. Is it OK to share your comment on Substack Notes?
Absolutely, happy to help in any way.
thank you
Bring on Science 2.0! Just the other day I was having a chat with my neighbour about the ‘bird flu’ hysteria (rumblings about registering backyard chickens here, in rural Australia). She knows that it’s all a beat up to control the food supply but still thinks there’s a virus. I had to leave to feed my chickens haha, but I said to her, next time we chat I’ll tell you about how they claim to ‘isolate’ what they call viruses, which I now have down pat thanks to a loosely affiliated team of brilliant Science 2.0 teachers around the world. I’m forever grateful 🙏
Please include your link for donations, I’m subscribed but not seeing the ability to pay for my subscription. Usually there will be a manage option and I’m not seeing it.
Thanks Pamela you are too kind, will have a look in the settings....
https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/6051838054932-How-do-I-upgrade-from-being-a-free-subscriber-to-a-paid-subscriber
It is weird because on some accounts it gives you the option to upgrade in a button... it is like that with large accounts for me... but for smaller accounts there is no button...it doesn't seem to be anything I can change.
It seems you have to go into settings and do it through there...
Hi Jamie, where's the Monero donation address? :)
Thanks for yet another great post!
Ask Jamie for his Monero donation address, that removes any dependency on whatever platform for donations and it takes away all the middlemen.
https://www.getmonero.org/
This was in the original email
"All of the content that is put out on this Substack is going to be for free. If you feel so inclined to donate or Sign up for a Paid Subscription that is very much appreciated. It will keep me writing, putting out content and continuing the largest Control Studies Project falsifying Virology. Upgrade to paid" (red button)
So I did!
Or, once Jamie’s Substack opens up, try clicking the mysterious green button (top right) and scroll down to "manage subscription"...
Hi Dave,
Thank you very much for your kind donation to the project.
Kind Regards
Jamie
Amazing Jamie, truly revolutionary!
Crowd sourcing funds is obviously limited to the amount of public interest there is on a topic - most people will only donate and depart with a portion of their money if it is likely to have a beneficial impact on their lives in some respect, especially if they have very little money to begin with as is the case with the majority of the population.
For example, the pandemic created huge public interest in virology so crowd sourcing funds for the controls has been somewhat successful. So in areas of science which have little to zero practical application to the average person's life, crowd sourcing is not likely to be as successful and science 2.0 is unlikely to venture in those directions and conduct experiments relating to those topics.
This is ,however, not necessarily a bad thing for the reasons you have already stated namely:
1) a large portion of science today is not useful to the average person and is there to just fortify the trust and belief in "The Science" and convey more authority to its priests, the white coats - the genetically modified purple haired rat is an example of this.
2) there will be a lot less scientific experimenting going on but there will be far more useful results being produced.
But doesn't this mean that science will still mostly be conducted where there is already money and only where there is money to be made?
For example, where a section of industry suspects that the practices they follow are ultimately harmful to the end users of their products, they are not likely to fund any experiements that will shed light on these facts. For example farmers using a certain pesticide. Despite the fact that these farmers have intimate knowledge of the pesticide, its ingredients and how it's used, and could group together and easily fund experiments determining whether the pesticide was in fact harmful, they in the interest of profits decide not to fund experiments or prevent any public attention being drawn to the issue.
This means that until such time as enough of the public has been harmed by these practices and enough interest and suspicion has been raised in the wider public to generate funds to undertake the necessary experiements to prove that it is that specific practice causing harm, Noone is going to carry out those experiments because of a lack of knowledge, incentive, interest and ultimately funds? Essentially, the science 2.0 model and crowd funding seems to only allow for reactionary science and not a proactive approach. How does science 2.0 work in these situations?
Hi Mia, Thank you for your detailed response, support and question.
Yes that is the true power of The Free Market in its simplicity, sorting what is necessary from unnecessary through demand... the people's blockchain.
In the case of pesticides use in Agriculture. It is already a given that A. Pesticides are poisonous
B. The farmers that use poisons on their product work for the State.
There needs to be no scientific experiment to show this, it is self evident.
We actually also have precedent that the opposite is more desirable in that "Organic" produce is worth more.
Where Science 2.0 could benefit these areas to decentralise modern agriculture further is to conduct experiments looking at the positive attributes to organic farming methods.
Just off the top of my head.... it could be interesting to conduct an actual controlled study of electroculture for instance... lots of people do DIY jobs of this.. but if you managed to show that pests could be reduced without pesticides and crops grew just as good or better... you have benefited the market and I expect it to be a profitable experiment.
No problem, thanks for taking the time to read and answer my question with such patience.
I think what you have said makes a lot of sense, except that us knowing pesticides are bad has not stop farmers from using them. Just like despite a lot of us knowing viruses are bogus, you have been forced to crowd fund experiments to prove to the authorities that they have no standing to enforce vaccine mandates and lockdowns. I mean for a lot of us just reading the methodology employed for the proof of viruses was enough to know there was no proof but this is not enough to avoid these things enforced by government. The results of the control experiments are undoubtedly the best way to avoid future mandates and lockdowns us knowing or even having precedents is not enough.
It seems that we would need to be able to produce similar experiments and results re pesticides in order to enforce a ban on things like glysophate - even though it really should be obvious and shouldn't be necessary to undertake experiments (just like with viruses). But how do we get enough public interest to fund these experiments before substantial harm is caused (even though I rate this harm has already occurred) ?
I agree the experiment you mentioned would be interesting but how do we get enough funding to do it in a way that will 1) gain the attention of the agricultural industry and 2) lead to a substantial prohibition of these poisons? It seems like we always have to wait untill substantial widespread harm is caused before we will have enough interest to fund the necessary science.
Do you think you would have received the same amount of donations for your control experiments prior to the pandemic? Say in 2019? Even with the lockdowns and mandates and job losses world wide, have you yet to receive enough funds to do all the controls you need to do re virology?
In any event, my question wasn't so much focused on the problems with agriculture, it was merely an example (probably not a good one in hindsight). But rather my question related to how do we nip certain harmful practices in the bud, before they do substantial harm? How do we fund scientific experiments before there is a dire need for them? How does science 2.0 prevent things from taking place? How do we fund necessary experiments before there is sufficient public interests to do so? For example, how would the science 2.0 model have got sufficient funding to under take the controls re virology prior to 2020.
Sorry forgot to reply about the funding for the project. So many people have been so generous. We have made enough to get alot of the things we wanted to do done.
We are trying to get a lab together to work on it full time. Hopefully Steve Kirsch coughs up his bet money if we assemble the Sars Cov 2 genome 😂😂
😂 Fingers crossed.
Well firstly I wouldn't say that this is going to happen over night. The results of the project are not going to halt a 3bn$ vaccine industry next week 😂😂. That will take a long time.
I think you are looking at this through slightly the wrong lens. You are never going BAN everything bad... if you BAN anything i.e write laws against stuff you are encouraging authoritarianism and hence the State which is how we ended up in this mess.
Pharmers will use glypphosate,DDT whatever because they are paid to use it...just the same as large swathes of the population will continue to inject themselves with poisons and eat horse dewormer... because they are thick as shit.
What we are trying to do is encourage a different way of living, the more that join in, the easier it becomes. I think a lot of people would prefer organically grown food it is just harder to come by and more expensive. The more people that join in the easier it becomes to access the good things in life, built on am infrastructure of the free market rather than authoritarian state control.
This really is a talking point of Anracho-Capitalism, Voluntarianism. There are plenty of resources out there of people who write on these principles... I can send you some things if you would like
OK I get where you are coming from now Jamie, thanks for taking the time. 🙏🏼
It's an interesting topic. I follow a group on telegram where people eat organic food but without processing - without cooking, baking and similar procedures. In short, it is best to eat raw meat, milk, eggs and fruit (and tomatoes, cucumbers), honey. Interestingly, there is a withdrawal of symptoms such as diarrhea, heartburn...I haven't read everything, but this is what users report on their personal example. I am e.g. managed to reduce "nervous bowels" and two-year diarrhea by almost 100% with one cucumber a day, and the rest I eat processed food.
As not very favorable ie. harder-to-digest foods are listed e.g. potatoes, peas, beans and the like because they have to be processed in order to be eaten.
🙏
Absolutely brilliant. The Citadel is the problem. Group think and an abandonment of the scientific method, replaces with money, and the censorship that funding suppression allows. . This is why for me the need for a rigorous adoption of two colour model (DATA / MODEL) is essential.
Was delighted that Sasha referred to it as her favourite definition of science. This essay makes the case that this is nothing to do with me. I’m not pushing for recognition because the fact that I’ve pointed to is so basic.
https://open.substack.com/pub/beyondcertainty/p/the-two-colour-protocol
Hi Tim, I’m glad that you have seen this. I was going to tag you - I thought you’d be excited that someone is trying to sort the green stuff from the pink stuff. 😊
Yes indeed. Loving the work Jamie is doing. Even if he had stopped and hung up his boots after the control experiments it would have been massive.
Like me he seems to have set his aims at a root level. Instead of constantly firefighting pseudoscience examples, put the house in order so they aren’t actively en€ouraged.
Decentralisation is the way. Group think is a huge danger. Loads of people sharing the same Brown Stuff.
Bring it on!! Science 1.0 has gotten out of control. It is the science of `marketing'.
Science 2.0 would bring us back to REAL Science again.
A 'philosouffle recipe' containing the ingredients of integrity, responsibility, accountability, transparency, and heart-guided intention will surely rise appreciably to free market expectations.
What could go wrong? . . but then at least we'd know why.
The proof will be in the pudding. I'm all for trying. Wonderful concept nicely explained Jamie !
Since the state is such a fundamental driver of all the problems and deceptions related to "science", this short (~40 minutes) audiobook fits here well: https://odysee.com/@NotSure1984:1/Anatomy-of-the-State---Full-Audiobook:d. Taken from https://mises.org/library/book/anatomy-state.
For those who want to listen more on the topic:
https://archive.org/details/larken-rose-the-most-dangerous-superstition-iron-web-publications-2011
Ah ha. Subbed through my email. Dancer brain. Lol 😂
CENTRALISED SCIENCE: multi million dollar labs, electron microscopes, genome assembly computer software, clean rooms, hazmat suits
DECENTRALISED SCIENCE: A bunch of volunteers, a bucket of snot and a wallpapering brush
Nope. My Dencentralized project utilised all of the equipment in your Centralized Science example.
It was a joke. I will explain the joke :)
The joke was that science (the scientific method) does not (necessarily) require fancy lab equipment, but science fraud usually does.
For example, contagion can be disproven with a bucket of snot (Rosenau etc). Disproving contagion with such crude (but scientifically valid) experiments also disproves 'contagious viruses'.
By contrast, to fake 'contagious viruses' requires lots of fancy and expensive equipment.... the sort of equipment which lends itself to highly centralised science and which is unavailable to more honest, independent scientists who are not being subsidised by Bill Gates or Big Pharma.
Here's another example relevant to 'covid'...... The contagion data set which was used to dictate government policy at the start of 2020 was created not by exposing healthy people to sick people, but by tracking 30,000 specially commissioned smartphone apps in an experiment by the BBC (Gates funded), Cambridge University (Gates funded) and LSHTM (Gates funded). This experiment presumably cost millions but it involved no biology whatsoever and could fairly be described as an elaborate and audacious (and expensive) act of science fraud - as humorously explained in this video...
https://odysee.com/@CoronaStudies:3/SMART-HEIST:7
ah.... I see, thanks for clarifying... agreed, certainly when it comes to contagion... simple is beautiful
Yes. And 'cheap is cheerful'.
We've seen the same dynamic play out with armchair/ street journalists and researchers with nothing but an smartphone and an internet connection outcompete the multi million dollar media giants who have whole buildings full of researchers, studios and editing suites.
What really matters is having integrity, not money :)
Certainly... if you can do an experiment without money that is even better
Sarcy comment of mine now scrubbed following Corona studies explanation.
Actually, I was pondering to myself during the day, "has Corona Studies account been hacked?"
I thought Steve Kirsch had found his way into the account.
Ha, not Kirsch, he aint got the the brains!
Y o u d o n ‘ t g e t i t.