Facemasks and CV19

#1
The prevailing assumption is that face masks prevent getting or transmitting COVID-19.

It's always wise to question popular opinion or hyped information from the media, government, or medical bureaucrats. This is what looking deeper into face masks reveals:

>Face masks are not proven to reduce deaths. Their effectiveness in terms of preventing disease transmission is in dispute.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002101

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19193267

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/...nsmission-households-cluster-randomized-trial

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285078/pdf/12879_2011_Article_1706.pdf

https://www.wired.com/story/the-face-mask-debate-reveals-a-scientific-double-standard/

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/wuhan-coronavirus-mask

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...ntary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

>The Surgeon General cautioned that masks are ineffective. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-n95-face-masks.html

>The COVID-19 virus is about 1000 times smaller in diameter than the diameter of a human hair. Although some masks can trap them, many cannot. If not perfectly sealed on the face, all masks are ineffective. Beards, in particular, prevent a good seal. https://www.wmur.com/article/cdc-fa...-covid-19-might-not-work-with-beards/31116576

>Facemasks create a false sense of security because hair, hands, clothing, and shoes act as fomites (infection transmitters) and the virus can infect via the eyes.

>Although surgeons are assumed to be proof of the importance of face masks, mask use in surgical theaters does not decrease disease transmission. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/infectioncontrol/16278

>Facemasks can increase transmission of disease by trapping heat and moisture from the breath, an excellent medium for microbial growth. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf

>Masks require frequent adjustment. COVID-19 trapped on their surface will then contaminate hands and cause infection when touching the mouth, nose, and eyes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31159777

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf

>People who are symptomatic, believing masks prevent transmission, go into public spaces and spread the infection.

>Forcing people who are not infected by the virus to wear masks contradicts the fact that the only solution to any disease is herd immunity—people must be exposed to pathogens to develop immunity to them— https://voxeu.org/article/early-dra...-may-be-suboptimal-fighting-covid-19-epidemic

>Masks embolden criminal activity since masked criminals will not be differentiated from innocent civilians. https://qz.com/1837529/thieves-are-capitalizing-on-the-publics-use-of-covid-19-masks/ Many states have laws against masking to prevent criminal activity.

>Masks prevent camera surveillance to identify criminals.

>Forcing the use of masks is unconstitutional unless it can be proven that a mandate is essential for public protection. But as outlined here, masks are not essential and in fact can be dangerous to the public.

>Mask mandates encourage civil disobedience as well as revolt by law enforcement officers holding to their duty to the Constitution. — https://www.newsmax.com/us/houston-police-facemask-covid-19/2020/04/23/id/964428/

>Forcing the wearing of masks will precipitate lawsuits and a financial burden on people who believe their rights are being infringed upon— https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/27/william-barr-orders-legal-action-against-governors/

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...nges-governors-order-for-people-to-wear-masks

>Citizens who object to mandatory face masking because of mask dangers or fealty to the Constitution will not patronize brick and mortar businesses that are forced to require them. This compounds the deadly economic and social effects of the "mitigation."

>For citizens proud of and sensitive to American liberty, wearing a mask would violate their conscience since they feel doing so would be like announcing to the world that they agree with and submit to un-American government overreach. Particularly is this so when the above facts are known or intuited, and it thus appears there is a nefarious un-American political agenda they feel duty-bound to object to.

Inasmuch as COVID-19 is not unusually lethal, and affects primarily the elderly, those engaged in unhealthy practices (smoking, vaping, poor nutrition, no exercise, no sun, etc.), and those with serious co-morbidities, there is no justification for mandates requiring facemask use or social distancing. For the past century, we have lived with diseases far more serious than C19 without government shutting society down and attempting to isolate and wrap all citizens up in cellophane.

The same common sense we have always used to prevent the spread of infectious disease is sufficient: handwashing, good etiquette when sneezing and coughing, and staying home when sick.

Finally, a word to those who strongly object to people not wearing masks. If you believe a mask protects you and are wearing one, there should be nothing to fear from someone not wearing one. If you believe by wearing a mask you are not transmitting disease, those who do not wear them have nothing to fear from you.

Wearing masks should be a personal decision that is informed by personal knowledge of effectiveness and risk assessment, not something imposed by an agenda-driven government.
 
#4
This is why we can’t trust “health experts” or media anymore. What’s true only fits the narrative of the corporate agenda, on that day.

If covid-19 was really risky. I’m talking, I had an immune system that was bad. It killed 15% etc etc. I’d go out in full hazmat gear.
Breath can still get through a mask. A mask won’t protect you as your vulnerable from your ears, eyes or small cuts.
I’m saddened for people wearing them in cars. You decrease your oxygen intake by 30%. How’s that safe for other drivers if your not fully alert from lack of oxygen? It also suppresses your immune system.
I think kindness has been weaponised. Masks are the thin side of the wedge. Most people are kind and just want to make sure we aren’t harming others. But we have to have discernment on who we trust and what we do.
 
#5
This is why we can’t trust “health experts” or media anymore.
I'm a fellow cynic on this point as well. But here's the thing: If some can't be trusted how can any? I think you linked a video in another thread from an MIT scientist regarding the immune system. Is he a "health expert"? Of course it would seem. So why is his message trustworthy? Are you yourself an infectious disease expert able to discern trustworthy scientists from corporate or DS shills?

It all seems to come back to the individual's bias. I get that. Its just ironic that on this site that David recently extolled as being some "intellectual high ground" this point is so often missed. The internet allows you to seek seek seek until you find whatever worldview reinforcing evidence you need. How will society ever seek convention on important topics? Its scary.
 
#6
I'm a fellow cynic on this point as well. But here's the thing: If some can't be trusted how can any? I think you linked a video in another thread from an MIT scientist regarding the immune system. Is he a "health expert"? Of course it would seem. So why is his message trustworthy? Are you yourself an infectious disease expert able to discern trustworthy scientists from corporate or DS shills?

It all seems to come back to the individual's bias. I get that. Its just ironic that on this site that David recently extolled as being some "intellectual high ground" this point is so often missed. The internet allows you to seek seek seek until you find whatever worldview reinforcing evidence you need. How will society ever seek convention on important topics? Its scary.
I agree with everything your saying.
I’m definitely in no way an expert and I hope I don’t come off that way.
I try to only recommend information from people I have followed for some time as I’ve invested enough of my time to trust their expertise on a certain topic. I made sure to point out that he’s not a GP. I do think a lot of people follow their bias. We are encouraged and even cheered now it seems to be this way. I guess I’m seeing more aggression put on those who don’t want to wear one. That could be my own bias. I can only speak for myself but when it comes this situation I’ve looked at information from various incompatible sources. I don’t judge others for wearing one but I do think it’s a slight danger while driving.
 
#7
This is why we can’t trust “health experts” or media anymore. What’s true only fits the narrative of the corporate agenda, on that day.

If covid-19 was really risky. I’m talking, I had an immune system that was bad. It killed 15% etc etc. I’d go out in full hazmat gear.
Breath can still get through a mask. A mask won’t protect you as your vulnerable from your ears, eyes or small cuts.
I’m saddened for people wearing them in cars. You decrease your oxygen intake by 30%. How’s that safe for other drivers if your not fully alert from lack of oxygen? It also suppresses your immune system.
I think kindness has been weaponised. Masks are the thin side of the wedge. Most people are kind and just want to make sure we aren’t harming others. But we have to have discernment on who we trust and what we do.
I should point out I got the 30% less oxygen from a talk between Dr Rashid Buttar and Dr Judy Mikovits. Both are against Dr Fauci so if your for his advise feel free to ignore.
Hazmat gear is my own invention. Only thing I’m aware of that can protect you the most.
 
#8
Appreciate the dialogue Smash. Seems we share some views.

For the record, I'm neither for nor against wearing a mask while driving. I don't do it myself personally, but I don't accuse folks who do of being "sheeple" which has been done on these forums.
 
#9
I think kindness has been weaponised. Masks are the thin side of the wedge.
As an aside, I recently saw an article positing the wearing of masks as an indicator of spiritual development and transcendence of ego consciousness.

Relatedly, it does make one wonder how many spiritual brownie points a hazmat suite would be worth. We need science to investigate this.

One more thing, the following has a bearing on mask wearing, doesn't it?

Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare,’ WHO says
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asy...-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

It all seems to come back to the individual's bias. I get that. Its just ironic that on this site that David recently extolled as being some "intellectual high ground" this point is so often missed. The internet allows you to seek seek seek until you find whatever worldview reinforcing evidence you need. How will society ever seek convention on important topics? Its scary.
I've told you before, I've statistically adjusted for my biases and I'm still right.
 
#10
I don't wear a face mask, and I won't until absolutely forced to do so. After being here on Skeptiko for years, my fear of death is vastly reduced, and somehow the masks seem to symbolise fear.

As Iconoclast has pointed out, the evidence for the value of wearing a mask is marginal, and there are arguments - made by medics - that they could be negative. For example, these masks result in a lot of re-breathing, meaning that if you harbour a small infection that is asymptomatic, the re-breathing may give the viruses within you an ideal opportunity to make you ill.

Perhaps it is worth listening to an alternative point of view:


Sorry the video is positioned near its end - please rewind if necessary.

(And yes, Silence, this is an academic with lots of medical experience discussing the issue intelectually)

David
 
Last edited:
#11
I agree with everything your saying.
I’m definitely in no way an expert and I hope I don’t come off that way.
I try to only recommend information from people I have followed for some time as I’ve invested enough of my time to trust their expertise on a certain topic. I made sure to point out that he’s not a GP. I do think a lot of people follow their bias. We are encouraged and even cheered now it seems to be this way. I guess I’m seeing more aggression put on those who don’t want to wear one. That could be my own bias. I can only speak for myself but when it comes this situation I’ve looked at information from various incompatible sources. I don’t judge others for wearing one but I do think it’s a slight danger while driving.
Exactly, the point is that neither of us are medical scientists or even doctors, but I have experience of science up to beyond PhD level, and maybe you have too, and we both realise that science is not always informative. The key indicator is when scientists aren't all agreeing, but those who disagree are shut out of the public debate. This can even happen to very senior scientists.

The real difference between Silence and I, is that he believes in quoting consensus science, and I don't. When science really knows something - like Newtons laws (that are valid as an excellent approximation), say, there are no dissenters so there is no need for consensus. Whenever there a perceived need for consensus, the science probably isn't remotely settled!

A very great deal of science isn't settled at all, and in the worst cases it is more like cover-up science - papers put out to deliberately paper over the problems.

I left science for a career in software development, and I am glad I made that choice, because I think the glory days of science in most fields (as opposed to technology) are long past.

Smash and Iconoclast, I'd strongly recommend that you look at the section of this forum entitled, "Why science is wrong about almost everything". Buried in a certain amount of dross, there are some very interesting discussions. Here is a thread that I contributed, on the subject of "Intelligent Design":

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/

I am definitely not a Christian, nor do I belong to any other faith (unless you count Skeptiko as a faith :) ) but I must acknowledge that it was Christians that have spearheaded that science.

David
 
Last edited:
#12
As an aside, I recently saw an article positing the wearing of masks as an indicator of spiritual development and transcendence of ego consciousness.

Relatedly, it does make one wonder how many spiritual brownie points a hazmat suite would be worth. We need science to investigate this.

One more thing, the following has a bearing on mask wearing, doesn't it?

Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare,’ WHO says
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asy...-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html



I've told you before, I've statistically adjusted for my biases and I'm still right.
; )

WHO knows .....how to contradict themselves.

Seriously frustrating that someone WHO’s not a doctor is the spokesperson.
Biggest donor has invested interests to steer their agenda.
I sometimes wonder if when the super collider at cern was turned on, we were all shoved into an alternate reality.
 
#13
I sometimes wonder if when the super collider at cern was turned on, we were all shoved into an alternate reality.
I somehow doubt that, but because that collider cost many billions, it would have been awfully embarrassing if it had come up with nothing, so could they somehow fake the Higgs particle to keep the money flowing in. Someone estimated that the electronics has to filter about 10^12 particles to find each Higgs (the raw data is filtered on the fly and not kept) go figure!

The hack, would have to be in some of the low level electronics, so most of the physicists would have been left blissfully ignorant. It may have been built in from the start, with a switch on the director's desk!

David
 
Last edited:
#14
I somehow doubt that, but because that collider cost many billions, it would have been awfully embarrassing if it had come up with nothing, so could they somehow fake the Higgs particle to keep the money flowing in. Someone estimated that the electronics has to filter about 10^12 particles to find each Higgs (the raw data is filtered on the fly and not kept) go figure!

The hack, would have to be in some of the low level electronics, so most of the physicists would have been left blissfully ignorant. It may have been built in from the start, with a switch on the director's desk!

David
:)
David, you’ve bought up many topics I’m interested in.
Up until a few years ago I was someone who followed and believed in mainstream science, media and medical.
It’s weird when you start noticing inconsistencies, then see the blatant lying. I actually went through a period of mourning over this. At times, I wish I could go back to being ignorant but the truth does set you free.
I have a personal example. In the last year, I starting researching and found doctors, health gurus & alternative healers online sharing their wisdom on how to fix illness from a systems view rather than just medication. For the first time in my life, I’m not taking any pharmaceutical medication. Not even ventolin and I’d been on that since I was 5.

My immune system is perfect. I’ve got results from my doctor (for the haters ;)) because of this I’m not scared of a virus or a flu. A few years ago I would have been as I was in poor health.
The best any of us can do is fix ourselves as much as possible - mentally, physically and spiritually. So no mask for me either but I understand those at risk or those plugged into the one view of mainstream. I was part of that, I get it.
I think it’s very scary and dangerous that doctors are being silenced. How obvious is mainstream making it to all of us, who are awake? I try and gently nudge those that are open, to start waking up to all this illusion.

Science.....I’m a layperson trying to grasp ideas.
I want to know truth even if it makes me uncomfortable. I used to feel hopeless and even dumb listening to talks by Lawrence Krauss and Sean Carol. Because their stuff felt empty and nonsensical, I widened my research and saw the inconsistencies in their arguments. I realised, wow they really don’t know that much. A lot of it only works on paper and with made up things like “dark matter” I like Rupert Sheldrake’s quote on the atheistic mainstream stick “give us one miracle (the Big Bang) and we can explain the rest.”

As far as I know they still haven’t found evidence of super symmetry at CERN, which would have helped with string theory. Most of modern technology is thanks to Nikola Tesla, if only he wasn’t shadow banned in his time :D
 
Last edited:
#15
:)
David, you’ve bought up many topics I’m interested in.
Up until a few years ago I was someone who followed and believed in mainstream science, media and medical.
It’s weird when you start noticing inconsistencies, then see the blatant lying. I actually went through a period of mourning over this. At times, I wish I could go back to being ignorant but the truth does set you free.
I have a personal example. In the last year, I starting researching and found doctors, health gurus & alternative healers online sharing their wisdom on how to fix illness from a systems view rather than just medication. For the first time in my life, I’m on no pharmaceutical medication. Not even ventolin and I’ve been on that since I was 5.
I am not on ventolin myself, but I know someone who needs it occasionally and uses a less powerful asthma inhaler regularly, so I'd be interested to know how you did it.
My immune system is perfect. I’ve got results from my doctor (for the haters ;)) because of this I’m not scared of a virus or a flu. A few years ago I would have been as I was in poor health. Now I hardly even get headaches.
There was a study done of Vitamin D levels in people admitted to hospital with CV-19, and a high proportion were found to be low on that vitamin. Furthermore, those who progressed to intensive treatment showed an even more prominent lack of vitamin _D!
The conclusion was that this was interesting, and might help researchers to work out the mechanism by which it worked, but that people shouldn't go off and dose themselves with Vitamin-D, which is obviously what I and my partner now do! How crazy can they get in the midst of an epidemic.

There is an NHS doctor who lives a few miles from us, and he blogs about cardiovascular problems, and other things like COVID-19 as they come up. It is worth reading his book, provided you are willing to tolerate (or skip) some statistical arguments:

https://www.amazon.com/Doctoring-Data-medical-advice-nonsense-ebook/dp/B00TCG3X4S/

He and a large following of other doctors basically follow this:

1) Cholesterol levels have nothing to do with cardiovascular disease, except possibly extremely high levels that are way out of the range where doctors want to treat you.

2) Saturated fats are good for you - better than polyunsaturated products, and the main food to avoid is sugar, and excessive consumption of carbohydrates (because they break down into sugars as you digest them).

3) The treatment for high cholesterol, statins, is very effective at lowering cholesterol, but causes a range of other problems. The only time as an adult that I have had any serious medical problem was with statins. Obviously I don't take them any more. It was only because of my problems with statins that I found Dr Kendrick's blog.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/

4) Many type-2 diabetics can be recover and be free of medicine if they eat a high fat, low carb diet. What is the official advice to such people - you guessed it - a low fat, high carb diet.

Most of the reason for this state of affairs seems to be that the pharmaceutical companies make billions out of selling their drugs.
That’s the best any of us can do. Fix ourselves as much as possible - mentally, physically and spiritually. So no mask for me either but I understand those at risk or those plugged into one view mainstream. I was part of that, I get it.
I think it’s very scary and dangerous that doctors are being silenced. How obvious is mainstream making it to all of us who are awake? I try and gently nudge those that are open to start waking up to all this illusion.
Unless they read around a bit, I don't think many doctors realise what is wrong - after all they pass on what they learned in medical school, and their time is occupied with the job. Above all, it is the people who produce the guidelines and the medical charities that support research and get huge grants from the pharmaceutical companies!
Science.....I’m a layperson trying to grasp ideas.
I want to know truth even if it makes me uncomfortable. I used to feel hopeless and even dumb listening to talks by Lawrence Krauss and Sean Carol.
The string theory stuff is impossible for me to read, but after studying it for 40 years, physicists are starting to realise string theory doesn't lead anywhere.

Cosmology absolutely depends on Hubble's law (it isn't a law just an observation), which translates the red shift of stars and galaxies into the speed they are travelling away from us, and hence their distance. That is where those statements about the age of the univerese being 13.8 billion years come from. Then along came Halton Arp, a student of Hubble, who produced a lot of evidence that those red shifts sometimes come from another cause. If true the whole ediface of cosmology would collapse! Guess what they did - they tried to stop him getting telescope time, and hindered his work in any way possible. Unfortunately, he died in 2012.
Again, I widened my research and saw the inconsistencies in their arguments. I realised, wow they really don’t know that much. A lot of it only works on paper and with made up things like “dark matter” I like Nassim Harameins quote on mainstream science “give us one miracle (the Big Bang) and we can explain the rest.”
I have come across that guy, and I have to say, I think he is a bullshitter, but that saying is attributed to Terence McKenna I think.
As far as I know they still haven’t found evidence of super symmetry at CERN which would have helped with string theory. Most of modern technology is thanks to Nikola Tesla, if only he wasn’t shadow banned in his time :D
Honestly, even if they had, I wouldn't have believed it by now!

Finally, of course, you have the implacable resistance of science to any concept of psychic phenomena.

Science is in a real mess. I think at some stage someone will have to scrap a large chunk of research 'results' after (say) 1960, and start again.

David
 
Last edited:
#16
One more thing, the following has a bearing on mask wearing, doesn't it?

Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare,’ WHO says
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asy...-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html
Not sure. Did hear someone clarify that this relates only to those who are, truly, asymptomatic vs those who may have symptoms that are hard to detect (slight runny nose, etc.). The latter group would present as "asymptomatic" to the layman, especially post infection but prior to whatever mild symptoms that manifest.
 
#17
The real difference between Silence and I, is that he believes in quoting consensus science, and I don't.
That's categorically false David. Nice strawman though. One quick example? I think mainstream science is utterly bankrupt on its belief in neuroscience as having explanatory powers over the hard problem. I am anti-mainstream science there. String theory, evolution as a complete theory of life, etc. There are others.

Here's the irony. This seems more accurate:

The real difference between David and I, is that he believes in quoting non-consensus "science", and I don't.

I have yet to see a debate in these forums or a conspiracy theory where you actually came out on the side of the consensus. Coincidence or bias?
 
#18
That's categorically false David. Nice strawman though. One quick example? I think mainstream science is utterly bankrupt on its belief in neuroscience as having explanatory powers over the hard problem. I am anti-mainstream science there. String theory, evolution as a complete theory of life, etc.
Ah - well you surprise me! Has you exposure to Skeptiko had any part in bringing you to that point?
There are others.

Here's the irony. This seems more accurate:

The real difference between David and I, is that he believes in quoting non-consensus "science", and I don't.
Yes I do, and there are several reasons why that makes sense:
1) Over history it has been the non-conformist scientists who were right. Even QM had to face the disdain of Einstein.

2) Non-conformist scientists often pay an incredible price for stating their views - it is so much easier to just go along with the herd.

3) I guess I object for exactly the sort of reason that makes you baulk at conventional neuroscience and the hard problem. You try to understand the subject, but it seems to dodge the most important issues.
I have yet to see a debate in these forums or a conspiracy theory where you actually came out on the side of the consensus. Coincidence or bias?
Well I think the theories of solid state physics must be fairly sound, otherwise they would not be able to deliver ever faster and more dense computer chips.

I think most of chemistry is valid - partly because it simply builds on a vast base of earlier work, and it has wonderful methods to identify molecules.

As I said anything up to about 1960 is going to be fairly sound.

Most of our debate is focussed on things that are probably wrong - that is exactly how science develops.

Now, lets consider evolution. Obviously nobody is saying that no evolution happens because of natural selection. So we don't seem so far apart perhaps. Have you read Michael Behe's book? Do you think he makes a good case? Remember, the expression "Intelligent Design" can, if you like be simply interpreted as evolution by an "unknown mechanism".

If we didn't evolve from simple chemicals via a statistical process, what do you think that tells us about the nature of life? When you combine a dodgy theory of abiogenesis and evolution, with a dodgy theory of neuroscience, you seem to me to be close to the same hymn sheet I sing off (definitely not to be taken literally).

David
 
#19
Ah - well you surprise me! Has you exposure to Skeptiko had any part in bringing you to that point?
Sure. I haven't been interested in where Alex has taken things over the past 2+ years however. I find conspiracy theories to be utterly uninteresting. What brought me here was the "Science at the tipping point" content and, again, it feels like we've moved so far beyond that as to almost be unrecognizable. Its Alex's baby so obviously he's free to do what he wishes, but the recent angles just haven't been my bag.

Yes I do, and there are several reasons why that makes sense:
1) Over history it has been the non-conformist scientists who were right. Even QM had to face the disdain of Einstein.

2) Non-conformist scientists often pay an incredible price for stating their views - it is so much easier to just go along with the herd.

3) I guess I object for exactly the sort of reason that makes you baulk at conventional neuroscience and the hard problem. You try to understand the subject, but it seems to dodge the most important issues.
I get that and certainly can be sensitive to it, but I pick up almost a bias against mainstream "anything" from you (and many others here). It comes back to the notion of conspiracies. This community seems all too eager to glob on to whatever the next conspiratorial thing may be. Almost a hunger or a seeking for it. Just screams bias to me.

Most of our debate is focussed on things that are probably wrong - that is exactly how science develops.
Well, I'm not so sure you can say this about the past few years around here as we really haven't been discussing much science. Its been UFOs, and cults, and ritual abuse, etc, etc. None of that fits under the category of "science" for me. YMMV.

When you combine a dodgy theory of abiogenesis and evolution, with a dodgy theory of neuroscience, you seem to me to be close to the same hymn sheet I sing off
If not the exact sheet, one that sounds the same to a scientific materialist listener for sure. :)
 
#20
Well, I'm not so sure you can say this about the past few years around here as we really haven't been discussing much science. Its been UFOs, and cults, and ritual abuse, etc, etc. None of that fits under the category of "science" for me. YMMV.
First, I agree there have been too many podcasts about cults, ritual abuse, and evil. I am not Alex!

Regarding UFO's, however, recently the US military acknowledged that they were encountering UFO's and were concerned by them where previously they had denied there was a real phenomenon. That means:

1) There must have been a conspiracy of some sort to pretend all these years that there wasn't any reality to the claims.

2) If UFO's are real, there must be some relevant science involved!

Remember that even evolution, or neuroscience involve an element of conspiracy. Both sciences pretend in public that there is no problem - everything is just fine, when they obviously know that isn't true.

What did you think of Donald Hoffman's take on the mind?



David
 
Top