The Power of Control

The Control as part of the Scientific Method has been worn away by attrition over the last Century or two whereby in most modern scientific publications it is rarely given any sort of notice. If noted I have never seen one with a specific methodology FOR the control,it is just assumed that it has been performed adequately.

I see this as no mistake. To me, this is a deliberate way of usurping Science’s greatest safety mechanism, THE part of an entire experiment where PROOF lays. Most would agree that a Control is a necessary part of the Scientific Method, I would go much further than that and say; The Control IS Science.

Science: “The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained”.

1. Observation. This is a granted, part and parcel of being alive,you assimilate the world around you, I would agree that some are more observant and have a keen eye for detail than others. However observations just on their own are fairly useless and can be extremely damaging if combined with untested assumptions. There is a whole area of Science which attempts to only deal with Observation called Epidemiology. It is the only arena that Virology feels comfortable in, because it just assumes cause without ever even carrying out the experimentation phase. Any Scientist that is intellectually honest (a rarity these days) would admit that Epidemiology is not a science.

2. AND 3. Experimentation and Testing of theories. This is the same thing in essence, the application and manifestation of the reason WHY the thing you observed took place.

When experimenting you try the thing you think may be the cause of your observation, it may work, but you have still not proved anything if you take just these results as the reason for causation.

You must simply A/B test them removing the independent variable and keeping all other variables the same. Or A/B test for a Blinded known or expected outcome. All of these systematic checks can tell you something HUGE that many people overlook:

A Control can DEFINITIVELY tell you something is NOT the cause. The power of falsification greatly outstrips any sort of repetition that is claimed as being a “Positive” indication because even when an outcome is repeatable you have never TRULY known the cause, it could be a variable on a much Smaller or Larger scale that has remained constant that you have never been aware of causing the results.

So IN Science I would argue that the most exact science seeks to FALSIFY and the ONLY way to do that is by CONTROLLING the environment.

I quickly googled this image from the keyword “PSEUDOSCIENCE”, as time has gone on I would almost certainly lump the images of Genetics and Atomistic Theories into the Pseudoscience category.

But here I want to address an important point that a few people are raising about Controls and their application to “Pseudoscience”. I would most certainly agree that Virology is categorically a PseudoScience. It has never identified and isolated and purified the Independent Variable in the first place. The only “Natural Observed Phenomenon” is Disease symptoms.

The Contagion of Biological Pathogens has been Falsified for 200 years of failed experimentation. The A/B testing of Healthy people being given infected Tissues/Mucus/BALF/Blood and kept in close quarantined facilities with diseased people has been tried on more than 100K people and consistently failed.

Here are nearly 100 Peer Reviewed and Published Experiments (ALL, ever conducted) Contagion Studies showing this.

Some may point out that these experiments for the most part were not controlled (Some were nd the Placebo groups experienced worse effects than “Virus” groups). A valid point but I would argue when an experiment fails, the results are 0, the experiment itself has acted as the control. All these Contagion Studies WERE Controls.

So we have shown that there is NO observed Natural Phenomenon. We can’t even get past hurdle one with Virology it has NO Independent Variable as shown by OUR Control Studies Falsifying the Cell Culture Isolation Methodology.

So here is a point made by a few people that “ How do you conduct a science experiment when there is NO Independent Variable, when there is no naturally Observed Phenomenon?” It has been suggested that you CANNOT conduct a Control Study Experiment on a Pseudoscience.

Here we have a classic example of a science experiment. Someone observes that people on a beach only seem to get sun-burnt when the Ice Cream Shops are selling Ice Cream. They make the hypothesis that Ice Creams cause sunburn and look to test this hypothesis.

How would they conduct this experiment? You Got it, A Control. They keep the environmental factors the same being at the beach in the summer sun but remove the Independent Variable being the Ice Creams. Lo and Behold people still get Sun-burnt and you have Falsified the hypothesis.

All of these things in this experiment objectively exist; The Sun, Sunburn and Ice Creams. They are all quantifiable and nobody would disagree this is not a legitimate scientific experiment with an accurate and dependable result.

So what happens if you chose something that doesn’t objectively exist? Say you just drum up the hypothesis that you think you once saw a Unicorn near a beach of sun-burnt people and claimed “Unicorns cause Sunburn”.

Well let’s use a Control again (It really is that great). You take the same environmental factors of a sunny day at the beach in summer and you make sure there are No Unicorns in the controlled scientific area (lol Virology)….Lo and Behold people still got sun-burnt and you have falsified the hypothesis that Unicorns cause sunburns.

It is irrelevant in this case that Unicorns don’t exist and there never was an Independent Variable, the experiment may seem slightly farcical but that does not negate either the scientific merit of the experiment or the results.

Some have argued that in the case of the Cell Culture Isolation Control Studies we have not put a “Viral Titre” into the Culture to A/B test the differences if any on the observed phenomenon (CPE).

Well let’s go back to our analogy. We have proved in our Unicorn experiment that they do not cause Sun-burn. somebody however from across the field has said that they have found a Unicorn and they know they exist because they give off such a bright light they cause sunburn. They present to us a cardboard cut-out of a unicorn that they bought from the ATCC. They stand the Unicorn next to Beach goers on a Sunny day who get sun-burnt.

We then perform a Control and remove the cardboard cut-out and the beach goers still get Sun-burnt. Thus we have falsified that Unicorns once again cause Sunburns, also because their existence is predicted on the fact that they cause Sunburns this has ALSO falsified the evidence for the Unicorns Existence.

In direct relation to our Control Studies this is the exact reason why we added a control sample of Sputum to a few of the Cultures. This acts like the addition of a Biological Sample that *Could* contain all of the variables of pathogenicity to a cell line. The results of our experiment showed that it did not increase the amount of CPE. The problem with a “Viral Titre” is that it has knowingly falsified ingredients in it. I.e Because t is made from the cell culture it contains antibiotics and reduced serum and already dying cells. we know these to increase CPE already as demonstrated in previous experiments.

A point was raised in the Kirsch v. Kaufman debate about essentially what does not constitute a Control or cannot be deemed a “Useful” Control in science. According to Kirsch he believed that what he describes as “Off Label” usage of Rapid Antigen Tests, such as putting Lemon Juice on them to make them positive is not a valid Control.

Obviously a test like the Rapid Antigen Test cannot be Controlled in the generic term of taking away the Independent Variable i.e Putting NO Sample on because the test must have some sort of sample to make it work.

This slightly alters the Control test as you then have to discern and make informed decisions as to what constitutes a valid Control.

I was slightly surprised that Kaufman seemed to agree with Kirsch’s sentiments, although I have a sneaking suspicion that given Kirsch’s decent into lunacy from the off in this debate claiming “ we can agree to disagree” on NOT using the Scientific Method!!!!!!! I think he was probably just looking to move the conversation forward by politely agreeing to a more complex issue that Kirsch would not have understood anyway.

With regards to specifically testing the LFTs with Lemon Juice/Fruit Juice I believe that it is wrong to suggest this hasn’t falsified these tests. If a mild acid environment can cause a positive indication on a test then what is to say mildly acidic saliva/BALF/Stomach fluid isn’t causing these tests to register and not an assumed “Antigen” (Which has never been demonstrated to exist BTW).

There is huge amounts of information out there about how acidic bodies are causing disease, it takes little imagination to start to question this results with Fruit Juice controls.

But it gets worse, a LOT worse. The above picture is from a peer reviewed and Published Control Experiment you can read my breakdown of it here: LFT CONTROL TEST

In this experiment the tests, tested positive with still bottled water and even Vodka! which has a very neutral pH as well as being regarded due to its high Alcohol content as being sterile. So our bodies are 60%+ water of a neutral pH. If these tests are becoming positive with a constituent part of the body that is more than half of our makeup there is no feasible way that a positive indication can mean ANYTHING at all.

So here we have a legitimate Control that has adequately Falsified these tests by using them “Off Label”. If you can find a variable which mimics the attributes of the dependent variable or is indeed made up of it then you have used good science and reasoning to find the truth.

So we hear about Pfizer as well as the rest of Big Pharma being sued for damages and paying out Billions of Dollars. They have over $10bn in payouts to date and in one such case paid out $2.3Bn in one go. Now these suits are for all sorts of reasons pertaining to different drug products. Some of the time it is to do with the way their products and to whom they are marketed. This includes “Off label” usage in a lot of cases.

The Legal Vehicle for the Scientific Experimentation part of these frauds is almost always centered around defrauding the process of the Randomized Double Blind Placebo CONTROLLED trial. Whether that be wholesale fabrication of data, manipulation of data, not carrying out adequate or fair controls or not carrying one out at all.

This shows you that in the eyes of the law, the CONTROL, is the most important part of the experiment and also the part that contains enough legally admissible evidence to make rulings on. And make rulings they have done Legal Rulings Here is a list of just NOTABLE decision of scientific fraud, each one of these representing a Legal Precedent.

In support of the Control being the most important part of the Scientific Method, I rest my case Your Honor.