Bret Weinstein: The Safety of Aluminum Adjuvants in Our Vaccines Has Not Been Tested

I regularly follow biologist Bret Weinstein (and his wife, biologist Heather Heying) on their Darkhorse Podcast. Here's Bret on Piers Morgan's show warning that the aluminum adjuvants used in most of our vaccines have not been safety tested. Very concerning.

Camus on X offers this summary:

The Unsettling Scientific Silence on Aluminum Adjuvants

A powerful point from Bret Weinstein highlights a critical failure in our public health dialogue: the refusal to properly study the systemic effects of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines.

The core of his argument is not anti-vaccine; it is pro-science. He states that if injecting aluminum into muscle is safe, that is "a scientifically easy thing to establish." The fact that this foundational work remains conspicuously undone is a glaring red flag.

So, what is an adjuvant? For the public, it's an additive designed to put the immune system on "high alert" so it reacts strongly to the vaccine's target antigen.

But therein lies the potential danger. The alarm sounded by the aluminum is non-specific. The immune system knows it's under threat, but it doesn't know from what. This is a radical biological intervention.

Weinstein, as an evolutionary biologist, posits a crucial question: Is this chronic, misdirected immune activation connected to the epidemic of modern ailments we see in younger generations?

Could it be a driver of the proliferating allergies? Is it a factor in the rise of serious, sometimes fatal, autoimmune conditions like asthma?

We simply do not know. These questions have not been properly investigated.

The conclusion is inescapable: even if a vaccine is beneficial for the specific disease it targets, the net impact on a person's lifelong health could very well be negative. We are making a massive, population-scale bet without the necessary data.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a demand for rigorous, transparent science to answer a question that has been ignored for far too long.

Continue ReadingBret Weinstein: The Safety of Aluminum Adjuvants in Our Vaccines Has Not Been Tested

Our Dependence on Petroleum-Based Fuel

How many gallons does of petroleum based products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and many other uses) does the entire world use every second?

First of all, I asked Grok (follow this link for a deeper dive):

Global oil demand (including both fuel and non-fuel uses) is currently around 104.6 million barrels per day.

Approximately 84% of this demand is for fuel uses (energy consumption), while the remaining 16% is for non-energy purposes like petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants, and asphalt. This ratio is derived from comparing IEA's reported energy consumption from oil (193 EJ in 2024, equivalent to ~86.4 million barrels per day) against total oil demand (102.8 million barrels per day in 2024), and scaling proportionally to current levels.

Fuel demand = 104.6 million barrels/day × 0.84 ≈ 87.9 million barrels/day. Convert to gallons per day: 87.9 million barrels/day × 42 gallons/barrel ≈ 3.69 billion gallons/day.

Convert to gallons per second: 3.69 billion gallons/day ÷ 86,400 seconds/day ≈ 42,732 gallons/second.

Next, I'll leave you with this shocking visual that pertains to the oil produced only by Kuwait every second:

I'm reminded of a comment made to me by an engineer who worked in the field of petroleum. He said it is perhaps the greatest achievement of human beings to be able to extract as much petroleum for use by human beings at such a moderate cost per gallon.

I'm also reminded of the many people who claim that we can replace all of this oil usage with wind and solar. I am skeptical of that claim when I read of the immense volume of oil we use.

Continue ReadingOur Dependence on Petroleum-Based Fuel

Ignorant Educators Disparaging IQ Facts

No, I don't like that some people are innately more intelligent than others. It doesn't seem fair. If I were the creator of the universe, I would have given everyone the same tools for learning and achieving. That said, I often read and hear people disparage IQ as a measurement. Without any basis, they claim that it is a poor measure of intelligence when IQ is actually one of the most valid and reliable measurements in all of psychology. Next time I hear that it is a poor measure, I'll ask the person: "Assume that you are about to start a new for-profit company in a competitive industry. You need to hire 100 employees. You can either hire 100 people with IQs of 90 or 100 people with IQs of 130. Now choose."

BTW, I don't know my own IQ. Therefore, I'm not writing this article from any sort of perch. And I guarantee that whatever my IQ might be, there are many people out there with significantly higher IQs than me.

I don't know what drives this belief among teachers, but it does seem to be another instance of social contagion, much like "phonics is bad" and "gender affirming care for children is good and necessary." Just because it's taught in school by well-meaning teachers doesn't mean that it's true.  There is also a vast literature disparaging IQ as an illegitimate measure. My first encounter with a strong attack on IQ was Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. 

What's the truth about IQ? Steve Stewart-Williams Recently commented on Education's Elephant in the Room, by Russell T. Warne (at Quillette), offering these excerpts:

The differences among students’ educational achievement start early and increase as children grow. By 5th grade, the average American classroom has children whose achievement in mathematics and reading ranges from the 2nd grade level to the 8th grade level or higher. It is simply impossible for a single teacher to prepare lessons in every subject that allow every student to learn new information. Some sort of ability grouping, in which students at similar levels of achievement are taught together, is necessary...

What causes these individual differences in intelligence and achievement that educators are so determined to deny, downplay, or ignore? …

This is where educators get really nervous, because the major cause of individual differences in intelligence seems to be genetics. The heritability of IQ varies, but in wealthy, industrialised countries, it approaches .80 in adults, which indicates that eighty percent of individual differences in IQ are associated with individual genetic differences. In young children, heritability of IQ is lower, but it hits .50 at about age ten and continues to increase into adulthood before levelling off…

In a British survey, only 29 percent of teachers thought that genes were one of the top three factors affecting student achievement. In other words, the scientific research shows that genes are usually more important than every environmental cause combined, and yet most teachers don’t even believe that genes rank in the top three causes of educational achievement…

I subscribe to the website of Steve Stewart-Williams, The Nature-Nurture Nietzsche Newsletter. He offers lots of rigorous research along with citations and his own insightful commentary. I highly recommend his work, including his article, "12 Things Everyone Should Know About IQ: here's a lot of IQ misinformation out there." '' He comments:

But like many ideas in psychology, IQ is the subject of a lot of misunderstandings and misinformation. Some believe that IQ tests are basically meaningless - that they don’t measure intelligence in any real sense or tell us anything about IQ-test takers except how good they are at taking IQ tests. Others go further, arguing that IQ research is malign pseudoscience aimed only at justifying discrimination.

None of these claims is true! Psychologists studying IQ have learned a great deal about this form of intelligence over the last century, and have an excellent track record of replicating their results. They know how to measure IQ; they know how nature and nurture help shape IQ; and they know how IQ helps shape people’s lives.

In this post, I’ll outline twelve key findings from IQ research that everyone ought to know. Whether you’re a fan of IQ or a skeptic, I hope you’ll find something here to surprise and challenge you!

His first topic (of the 12) dovetails with Warne's article:

1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). IQ is nearly as heritable as physical traits like height. And the only other psychological traits with similar heritability levels are psychiatric conditions like autism and schizophrenia.

Below I am setting out the other eleven topics, but I recommend the article in its entirety:

2. The heritability of IQ increases from childhood to adulthood.

3. IQ scores have been increasing steadily for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect.

4. IQ predicts many important real-world outcomes

5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes

6. Higher IQ is associated with lower rates of most forms of mental illness.

7. More generally, IQ tests are among the most reliable, predictive measures in psychology – one of the field’s crowning achievements.

8. Despite its excellent psychometric properties, many people are allergic to the concept of IQ. Ironically, this includes many intellectuals.

9. Perhaps as a result of the academic allergy to IQ, there’s some evidence that researchers are less likely to publish studies showing a link between IQ and students’ grades: the reverse of the usual publication bias for positive findings.

10. The antipathy to IQ is unfortunate.

11. IQ tests have other potential benefits.

12. Last but not least, here’s a list of ten common myths about IQ, from Stuart Ritchie’s book Intelligence: All That Matters.

Continue ReadingIgnorant Educators Disparaging IQ Facts

Before You Complain About Anything . . .

Quote by David Sinclair, longevity researcher at Harvard:

Statistically, you should not exist:

– Life-friendly universe: 1/10⁶⁰

– Earth + moon: 1/10⁹

– Multicellular life: 1/10⁴

– Intelligence & civilization: 1/10⁹

– Your genome: 1/70 trillion

You’ve already won the lottery 10 times in a row. Ignore small people & enjoy!

Continue ReadingBefore You Complain About Anything . . .

Jokes and Fragility

Ricky Gervais:

How arrogant are you to think that you deserve to go through life with no one ever saying anything that you don't agree with or like? I want people to stop saying "That joke's offensive." I want them to start saying "I found it offensive" because you've got to own your emotion, because that's all it is. You're just telling me how you feel about it. Yeah, there's nothing intrinsically offensive about this joke. We shouldn't hurt people's feelings. Well, you can if their feelings are wrong, If you don't like the facts, don't change the facts. Change the feelings.

Continue ReadingJokes and Fragility