🔔 Trust The Science

 It’s actually worse than this.

1. US bans gain-of-function research (GOR)

2. Bureaucrats, through the Charitable Industrial-Complex, funded it abroad in a lab in China

3. Global pandemic occurs, beginning in the same Chinese city with the lab

4. The media LIONIZES Dr. Fauci https://t.co/D92OmqtkAF— Melissa Chen (@MsMelChen) October 25, 2021 

 7. The lead bureaucrat who facilitated the actual funding of GOR research is appointed by China as part of the investigative team on the ORIGINS of Covid19

8. He dismisses the lab leak theory and drums up new hypothesis that virus origins came from FROZEN FOOD imports— Melissa Chen (@MsMelChen) October 25, 2021 

 New York City fire, police, EMS and other workers protest in Brooklyn, New York against the vaccine mandates in the city. pic.twitter.com/z7xudRxvWT— Marie Oakes (@TheMarieOakes) October 25, 2021 

I once saw an incredible lecture in Berkeley by a historian of science, one of the best talks I have ever seen. He started his talk sitting on the desk amongst a huge pile of physics textbooks from history, each in its day "the best textbook of its time."

He began by showing us the text written by a student of Isaac Newton, which explained Newtonian forces and the motion of planets. Nevertheless, it had various mistakes and misunderstandings. He set it aside and moved to the next book, also excellent, but also flawed in some way.

And then the next. The speaker proceeded systematically through the historical procession of physics texts, highlighting how each had improved upon its predecessors, but also explaining in specific detail ways in which each of them was flawed.

Some were flawed in their account of light, another had an etching of a comet, "drawn by a person who had *never* seen a comet." Eventually, the progression moved into the 20th century, but still the texts were wrong on various fundamental points, often now quite technical.

Finally, he got to the physics text used currently in Intro Physics classes. He explained how it had improved on its predecessor, and then said that he didn't know of any specific physics issue it got wrong. He silently placed it on top of the pile of earlier, flawed texts.

What a punchline! And what an effective way to convey his main point. The implication was completely clear that of course we should expect that eventually this text also will come to be seen as fundamentally wrong on some issue or other. Source: Joel David Hamkins 

There is no red in this specimen image. The color is a created in your mind. We see what we expect to see with the minimum amount of sensor input, then the HumanOS makes a guess.

Neuroscientists said the big principles that underlie how our brains process what we see also underlie most of our thinking.

Illusions are “the basis of superstition, the basis of magical thinking,” Martinez-Conde says.

“It’s the basis for a lot of erroneous beliefs. We’re very uncomfortable with uncertainty. The ambiguity is going to be resolved one way or another, and sometimes in a way that does not match reality.”

Naive realism is the feeling that our perception of the world reflects the truth.

 The EQONEX Welcome Bonus Program is officially launched!

Claim a $350 welcome bonus in $EQO when you:

✅ Verify your EQONEX account

💰 Make a crypto/fiat deposit of at least $100

📈 Trade $200,000 volume or morehttps://t.co/LPpqROrdmz pic.twitter.com/SBiARzRYV6— EQONEX (@eqonex) October 8, 2021 

'Extreme overbought conditions are normal for trending markets... In trends, therefore, crowds are bullish.'