Archaeologists excavating at the Simbiro III archaeological site have found a trove obsidian hand-axes from 1.2 million years ago, indicating that hand axe production on a mass scale occurred 500,000 years earlier than previously thought.
Simple obsidian tool production has been documented from sites as early as 3.3 million years ago, but the complexity for mass tool production of hand axes by an unknown group of hominins at Simbiro III, predates the earliest known example found at Kariandusi in Kenya which dates to 700,000-years-ago.
The results of the study at Simbiro III have been published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, where the researchers document almost 600 obsidian hand-axes being discovered.
Abstract here:A surge in obsidian exploitation more than 1.2 million years ago at Simbiro III
There are highly edited versions of this floating around the internet this morning. Including an edited version put out by Adams himself. But its well worth watching the whole thing to really get the context and what Adams is thinking.
I don’t completely agree with Adams that his process was largely correct but he got the wrong answer. A lot of people were comparing the wrong things when they decided to get the shots. That was a big part of the propaganda campaign. But kudos to Adams for going public with this. Far more people need to follow his example.
In August 2021, Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist and physician at Vanderbilt University, got a call that would plunge him into a maelstrom of possible scientific misconduct. A colleague wanted to connect him with an attorney investigating an experimental drug for Alzheimer’s disease called Simufilam. The drug’s developer, Cassava Sciences, claimed it improved cognition, partly by repairing a protein that can block sticky brain deposits of the protein amyloid beta (Aβ), a hallmark of Alzheimer’s. The attorney’s clients—two prominent neuroscientists who are also short sellers who profit if the company’s stock falls—believed some research related to Simufilam may have been “fraudulent,” according to a petition later filed on their behalf with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Schrag, 37, a softspoken, nonchalantly rumpled junior professor, had already gained some notoriety by publicly criticizing the controversial FDA approval of the anti-Aβ drug Aduhelm. His own research also contradicted some of Cassava’s claims. He feared volunteers in ongoing Simufilam trials faced risks of side effects with no chance of benefit.
So he applied his technical and medical knowledge to interrogate published images about the drug and its underlying science—for which the attorney paid him $18,000. He identified apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles. The attorney reported many of the discoveries in the FDA petition, and Schrag sent all of them to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which had invested tens of millions of dollars in the work. […]
But Schrag’s sleuthing drew him into a different episode of possible misconduct, leading to findings that threaten one of the most cited Alzheimer’s studies of this century and numerous related experiments. Continue reading →
Children struggling with obesity should be evaluated and treated early and aggressively, including with medications for kids as young as 12 and surgery for those as young as 13, according to new guidelines released Monday.
The foreign air carrier must require that each Covered Individual, prior to boarding a flight to the United States, and consistent with the CDC Order and Technical Instructions, has:
1. Presented paper or digital documentation of Proof of Being Fully Vaccinated Against COVID-19, consistent with the CDC Order and Technical Instructions, that includes personal identifiers (e.g., name and date of birth) that match the personal identifiers on the passenger’s passport or other travel documents;
The new order will expire April 23, 2023 unless of course it gets extended again.
Soon after Dennis added his Spot the Fallacies post, this discussion between Dr. Aseem Malhotra and Bret Weinstein appeared in my YouTube feed. It’s long but if you just listen to the first 15 minutes, you’ll learn that Malhotra is a true scientist and not a political technocrat who is willfully blind.
The loss of glaciers from Glacier National Park is one of the most visible manifestations of climate change in the U.S. Signs were posted all around the park, proclaiming that the glaciers would be gone by 2020. In 2017, the Park started taking these signs down. What happened, beyond the obvious fact that the glaciers hadn’t disappeared by 2020?
Not only are Montana’s glaciers an important icon for global warming (e.g. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth), it also seems that the glaciers are an important political icon for progressive politicians in Montana. Earlier this week, Reilly Neill, a (sort of) politician in Montana, went after me on Twitter […]
Well, it just so happens that I have some analyses of Montana glaciers and climate in my archives; maybe I can help Reilly (and the “real scientists of Montana”) understand what is going on.
Andrew Bridgen-Now the BMJ’s Journal of Medical Ethics confirm vaccine causes more harm than benefit to younger people. The roll out must be suspended and children must not be put at risk through these experimental mRNA treatments.
University booster mandates are unethical because they: (1) are not based on an updated (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit assessment for this age group; (2) may result in a net harm to healthy young adults; (3) are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; (4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related harms are not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury schemes; and (5) may result in wider social harms.
It took awhile but eventually Tim Robbins came to realize that something was awry with the Covid narrative.
On a personal note, I’ve done a lot of thinking recently about when I began to suspect that something was not right with what we were being told. A bellwether event for me was in early June 2020, when 1,288 Public Health “Professionals” signed their name to an open letter which argued that the George Floyd protests/riots were okay “because racism is itself a public-health issue that needs to be addressed“. More here. There were other events as well but this was a big one.
If you happen to recall what fueled your skepticism of The Narrative™, please do share.
A new study by a team of leading climate scientists suggests that the effect of carbon dioxide this century might be small if not undetectable when compared to natural climate variability.
Global surface temperature is and always has been the key climate parameter. Whatever is happening to the Earth’s climate balance, it must, sooner or later, be reflected in the global annual average temperature, and not just in regional variations. [emphasis, links added]
But therein lies what is to some an inconvenience as the changes in the global temperature this century are open to differing interpretations including the suggestion that increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are not needed to explain the changes we have seen in the last 20 years or so.
It’s a conclusion that many would dismiss as coming from climate “skeptics,” or downright deniers.
But what if it’s the view of scientists from two of the world’s leading institutes researching climate change; the University of Oxford and the US National Center for Atmospheric Research?
The idea of migrating to Substack was Carl’s. We had been harassed, censored, and blocked in our efforts to understand exactly what had been going on since late winter 2020. We decided not to respond to personal attacks and not to name individuals who we knew conspired against us, although as it’s Christmas, I have made an exception for Mr Hancock. I must confess that I am astounded he is still a sitting MP on the benches of the mother of modern democracies.
On substack, you own what you write and carry the buck if you get it wrong. There are no censorship or arcane rituals like editorial peer review. We can decide even to publish some of our studies, videos of our posts, debates and interact with our paying subscribers.
At Montreal’s Concordia University, even light is being “decolonised.” By people with salaries and lots of taxpayer subsidy:
The assembled scholars boast that they are “not seeking to improve scientific ‘truth’” and that the purpose of their intellectual toil is “not to find new or better explanations of light.” As if such gifts were theirs to give, or a remotely plausible outcome. Instead, they are vexed by the “social power relations” of scientific enquiry, its objectivity and usefulness, and the fact that the quantifiable and demonstrable tends to trump mythology and the adorable ramblings of one’s Very Indigenous Grandpa.
Apparently, this preference for things that actually work is terribly unfair, an affront to “social equity,” resulting in the “marginalisation” of those whose self-esteem is grounded in the obsolete and inadequate, and hence the imperative to “decolonise” All The Things.