The former prime minister of Luxembourg who heads the EU’s bureaucracy in Brussels said: ‘Europe gains whenever again we point out that Europe is a major project for peace.
‘Whosoever does not believe in Europe, who doubts Europe, whoever despairs of Europe, should visit the military cemeteries in Europe.’
Elsewhere in RealClearScience:
Recently, my colleagues and I published research in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that examined dietary data from almost 50 years of nutrition studies. What we found was astounding; these data were physiologically implausible and incompatible with survival. In other words, the diets from these studies could not support human life if consumed on a daily basis. The reason for this is simple; the memory-based data collection methods (M-BMs) used by nutrition researchers are unscientific because they rely on both the truthfulness of the study participant and the accuracy of his or her memory. Stated more simply, these methods collect nothing more than uncorroborated anecdotal estimates of food and beverage consumption.
Importantly, vast amounts of taxpayer dollars are directed away from rigorous scientific investigations and squandered every year on the collection of uncorroborated anecdotes via M-BMs. Approximately 80% of the data in the USDA’s National Evidence Library consists of uncorroborated anecdotes as well as 100% of the dietary data from every major epidemiologic study over the past 50 years (e.g., Nurses’ Health Study, Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, REGARDS project, and EPIC study). In other words, most of what nutrition researchers call “scientific evidence” is in reality a vast collection of nearly baseless anecdotes. Nevertheless, despite a century of unequivocal evidence that human memory and recall are woefully inadequate for actual scientific data collection, the data from these methods are used to create public health policy.
To date, no researchers have published data that challenge or attempt to refute our findings and conclusions. The reason for this fact is simple: our science is strong and our findings irrefutable. Nevertheless, this has not stopped government-funded researchers and officials from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from demonstrating an unscientific intolerance to criticism by using rhetoric and fallacious ad hominems in defense of their pseudoscientific methods.
Tobacco research uses the same memory-based data collection methods. Every time anyone is asked how many cigarettes they smoke each day, they’re being asked to remember something that they have no record of. In fact, they’re not just being asked how many cigarettes they smoked today or yesterday, but how many cigarettes they smoked over the past year or even the past 20 years. This like asking someone how tall they were, or the exact distance of their front door from the corner shop, when they were 7 years old. Whatever number they come up with will be a guess.
And finally, Newt Gingrich explains the problem with Trump:
According to Gingrich, the Republican establishment rejects Trump because he is “an outsider. He’s not them. He’s not part of the club. He’s uncontrollable. He hasn’t been through the initiation rights. He didn’t belong to the secret society.”
So, not a member of Skull and Bones like George W Bush and John Kerry.