Insider - I'm Alive

Follow the Science

That’s Not My Truth

My recent articles and posts on vaccines are facing the usual attacks of these windy times:

1. Ignore the substance.

2. Attack a nuance.

3. Use ad hominem, or mot and bailey, or anything else in the entire world except integrity of information.

So, complaints about sample size and publishing author, about “not checking my sources” and “being a pastor” come in, but not a single challenge to anything I, Me, the guy, Jonathan, actually said.

That’s the most telling observation of all.

Here’s the truth:

The 1.25.25 adjuvation study is no different from the early epidemiological studies of the 1940s and 50s, which are still treated as infallible doctrine in nutrition science. But here’s the problem—all epidemiological studies are inherently flawed.

Why? Because:

• Sample sizes and methodological limits prevent any study from capturing the full picture.

• Epidemiology is a broad-brush tool, meant for identifying patterns, not proving causation.

• Science itself is a fine-toothed comb looking for where to search next, not a final answer.

And yet, those old, unquestioned studies—despite their limitations—remain the foundation of massive public health policies (and crises) that define the Standard American Diet (SAD) today. The same flawed approach that gave us government-backed nutrition “truths” is now the gold standard for justifying medical interventions, even when evidence is weak.

Follow the Science? Yes.

Popper’s Principle: You Can’t Prove a Positive. It Must Be Assumed.

The Logic of Logic Demands you Feel Bad Sometimes

The claim that you can only prove a negative stems from epistemology and logic, particularly the nature of falsifiability and verification. A positive claim asserts that something exists or is the case (e.g., “There is a unicorn in my backyard.”). A negative claim asserts that something does not exist or is not the case (e.g., “There are no unicorns in my backyard.”).

The Problem of Infinite Verification

To prove a positive claim definitively, you must account for all possible conditions—which is often impossible. For example, proving “Unicorns exist somewhere in the universe” would require searching every corner of existence.

A negative claim, however, can sometimes be proven more easily by demonstrating a contradiction or showing that the claim is logically impossible. For instance, “A square circle does not exist” is provable because the definitions of “square” and “circle” contradict.

Partial Knowledge must be Falsifiability to be True

Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability suggests that science progresses by disproving hypotheses rather than proving them. A single counterexample can disprove a universal claim (e.g., “All swans are white”) by finding just one black swan.

The Philosophical Limit of Man is Man

In reality, both positives and negatives are subject to degrees of proof. Some positive claims (“I exist”) are self-evident, while some negative claims (“There are no intelligent beings anywhere in the universe”) are impossible to prove conclusively.

Thus, while it is often easier to disprove than to prove, both positives and negatives depend on context, definitions, and available evidence.

That is why I DO NOT claim any of these study’s proved anything definitively?

No.

1. Science shows us where to look next.

2. Science achieves this not by proving true, but by proving false.

3. Thus, the only Tru Science there is is to question the “science” there is.

And here’s the kicker:

Schools of Tru Knowledge overlap.

The Knowledge of God is Queen of Sciences Still.

Reason is not king.

Jesus is King of History.

His is the Spirit of Wisdom.

His Father is the God of Glory.

So when the same institutions that indoctrinated two generations (and counting) of children with the lunacy that “fat and salt are bad,” “sugar is good,” and “seed oils are fine”—all based on weak epidemiology and regulatory capture—now cry out, “You questioning our science with integrative science isn’t good enough to make us curious,”the hypocrisy couldn’t be clearer.

These are the same people who ran a state-enforced, profit-driven medical coup, pushing experimental medicines under the guise of public health. Now, they refuse to allow legitimate studies on vaccine schedules—using their own rehashed, outdated, and debunked FDA “science” as justification. And yet, those same agencies have become increasingly entangled in USAID-backed global health agendas, more interested in controlling markets than discovering truth.

So forgive me if I don’t hear scientific curiosity in their protests—I hear the worship of Mammon and Molech in the alchemy of double-blind compliance with an ever-growing humano-genetic-therapy schedule, (you know, drinking fluoride) using the same “expert consensus” approach that real nutrition science has exposed at the dark roots of the Deep State of Nutrition for the better part of 70 years.

Clinical Proximity:

A Study Is Not the Answer—It’s the Starting Point

Criticisms of the sample size and publishing author of the vaccine schedule study, while predictable, fail to engage with the actual arguments it presents. This is a familiar pattern in modern scientific discourse—attack the source, ignore the substance. But if we hold this study to such scrutiny, then we must apply the same scrutiny to foundational epidemiological studies that have shaped public health policy for decades.

For decades, any study of “settled science” has been dismissed, not on scientific grounds, but on the basis of perceived authority and institutional backing. Yet today, we know from continued study by (mostly) clinicians that many of these “settled” ideas were not just wrong— but sold as lies with government approval.

Seed oils (including soy, canola and corn ie “vegetable” based) are inherently harmful, cholesterol is inherently good for you, and nigh-toxic exogenous sugar is a primary driver of nearly all metabolic disease and co-morbidities.

So, I am no about to stop asking good questions.

The overlap of corruption between nutrition and vaccines mythologies are striking.

Both:

1. Operate within public health frameworks—dictating nationwide policies based on epidemiological inference rather than direct clinical evidence.

2. Enforce compliance through institutional authority—schools, workplaces, and medical establishments adopt these recommendations as mandatory.

3. Silence dissenting voices through professional gatekeeping—researchers questioning vaccine schedules or dietary guidelines are often blacklisted, deplatformed, or denied funding.

4. Fail to adapt when real-world evidence contradicts policy—whether it’s the failure of the low-fat diet paradigm or the increasing evidence that aggressive vaccine schedules may have unintended consequences, institutions double down rather than recalibrate.

The same academic and bureaucratic forces that once insisted on low-fat diets as the only way to prevent heart diseaseare now the same forces pushing an ever-expanding vaccine schedule with zero long-term comparative studies. The methodology, when convenient, is upheld as gold-standard science. When inconvenient, it is ridiculed.

A Good Study Always Points Where to Look

Like the early cholesterol-disease studies, the vaccine schedule study does not claim to provide definitive proof—it reveals patterns that require further serious investigation. It is a directional signal, not a final verdict.

To dismiss it on the basis of sample size alone is a failure of scientific rigor. The scientific method demands replication, expansion, and refinement—not outright dismissal based on professional bias. The question is:

Why is there such hostility toward even asking these questions?

When early nutrition studies suggested a link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease, the government immediately acted on them—even though they were based on weak correlations, poor data collection, and selective reporting.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Scrutiny

Whatever the reason, the refusal to investigate further is anti-science.

If a study with limitations is enough to shape public health policies that last generations, then a study with limitations should also be enough to prompt further investigation when those policies need to be questioned based on results “in the pew.”

If we can use a few studies to guide public policy for 80 years, then we can certainly use a few studies to challenge that same regime when they announce that all further questions are treason.

For, as the reader knows, we aren’t dealing with science. We are dealing with the dogmas of Folly.