Dr. Greg Nigh @gnigh

quantamagazine.org/why-am-i-left-… Here's yet another example of the absurdity that is evolutionary theory. In mathematics, for a conjecture (analogous to a "hypothesis" in other branches of science) to be accepted by the larger community of mathematicians it doesn't have to be proven. But it must be shown to hold true when subjected to multiple tests of its accuracy. In evolutionary "theory," here's how the sleight of hand works: it is built upon two fundamental drivers, random mutation paired with natural selection. Those working in tandem, so the story goes, increases the "fitness" of individuals. Those enterprising scientists hypothesizing about evolution then use what is assumed to be a change in *fitness* (in this case, handedness as it relates to surviving a stab in the chest) as a proxy for changes in *genetics*. Changes in fitness can be explained by psychologists with nothing more than a just-so story, with colleagues nodding in agreement. Changes in genetics that morph organisms preferentially into left- and right-handedness are literally impossible to map out over time. We are fed the stories. We are to believe the genetics behind the stories are understood or even plausible. And C19 shots are safe and effective. "Then, in 2023, psychologists advanced the “modified fighting” hypothesis, which says righties have a more basic advantage dictated by the position of the heart on the left side of the body. Since they wield weapons in their right hands, their most effective and potentially fatal blows can be delivered to the left side of their opponents, where the heart is. At the same time, right-handed attackers lead with their right — protecting the more vulnerable side. In 2026, the scientists behind the modified fighting hypothesis supported their case with a review of the literature on sharp-force injury. They found that people are stabbed significantly more often on their left sides, and these attacks are more often fatal."

nature.com/articles/d4158… There is a great book titled "The Privileged Planet." It meticulously documents dozens of conditions that have made earth uniquely able to not only support life, but for life on earth to be able to learn about itself and about the universe. One of those is the fact that our sun is 400 times further from the moon than the moon is from earth, *and* its diameter is 400 times smaller than the sun's. That means the moon perfectly eclipses the sun during a solar eclipse. And *that* allowed observers to learn things they could not have otherwise about the sun's chemical composition. And *that* allowed scientists to learn a great deal about the composition of all stars, and thereby to learn about their masses, and their gravitational pull, and on and on. And what is even crazier: given the very slow drift of the moon away from the earth, it will only make that perfect eclipse for a relatively short window of earth's history, about 5-10% of it. And it just so happened to be within that thin slice of earth's history that science developed to the point that it could learn what those eclipses had to offer. Huh.

nature.com/articles/d4158… Mutations in the FNIP1 gene lead to changes in the associated enzyme, and those changes are associated with multiple health benefits. This makes it seem like a case of how gene mutations lead to ongoing survival benefits ala neo-Darwinian evolutionary processes. Think again. All mutations in that gene associated with health benefits are loss-of-function (LoF) mutations, not gain-of-function (GoF) mutations. The mutations lead to a shortening of the gene that is getting translated into protein. Carry that out over time. If you continue to accumulate LoF mutations eventually the gene loses all function. You can't build evolution over long periods of time on LoF mutations. Think of the unmutated gene as an overinflated car tire. Letting out some air leads to enhanced traction and thus better driving performance. But continue letting air out and eventually you have a car with flat tires. Evolutionary theory is built upon a foundation of GoF mutations, but those are exceedingly rare. I mean, very very rare. Whereas LoF mutations are vastly more common. LoF mutations are estimated to occur anywhere from 10x to 1000x more often than GoF. If organisms take 20 (or 1000) genetic steps back for every step forward, they aren't going to get very far.

@icitizenofearth You got locked out of X?

@DangerousConspr @TPUSA Round peg, square hole. Except vice versa.

nytimes.com/interactive/20… One could think from the headline that scientists created this amazingly life-like cell from scratch. "Now the SpudCells grew, fed and reproduced. As it turned out, the cells even had a rudimentary ability to evolve." But in order the get this "manmade" cell to the point that it had this 'rudimentary ability to evolve,' which is of course the place where evolution can actually begin its work, an enormous number of very intelligent adjustments had to be made to this blob. DNA and proteins from other bacteria had to be added to the mix, which is not very "manmade" at all. "The researchers also provided their synthetic cell with genes borrowed from a virus and the ubiquitous microbe Escherichia coli. They picked 36 genes for basic jobs like copying DNA." So just how close are scientists to creating a fully synthetic and operational cell? Not very. Perhaps the most fundamental feature of a living cell is its ability to manufacture proteins. "For all this evidence of life, SpudCell still has some major shortcomings. For starters, it can’t make the molecular factory that produces new proteins, called a ribosome. The cells can carry all the genes they need to build ribosomes, but for some reason the parts don’t come together. "For now, Dr. Adamala and her colleagues have to feed ready-made ribosomes to SpudCells. This solution has an expiration date, though: SpudCells can keep making proteins through five to 10 generations before they fail as their ribosomes become defective. “I don’t want to say it dies, but it stops working,” Dr. Adamala said."

nature.com/articles/d4158… The discovery of a 4-carbon sugar (one very minimally involved in earthly biology) in the center of our galaxy and claiming that it says anything about the origins of life on earth is like finding a spark plug and claiming it might explain the origin of a Boeing 757. It goes without saying that in order to metabolize sugars for energy you have to already have a fully competent metabolic machine in place. And in order to build that metabolic machine, you have to use energy that is harvested from, um, sugar. It is the bane of all evolutionary theorizing: ultimately you get back to the place where the whole theory has to pick itself up by its own bootstraps.

cell.com/immunity/fullt… Two points I can't help pointing out about this article. First, evolutionary biologists will make no attempt to explain the gradual evolutionary steps all the related signaling molecules and their receptors had to make for this advanced infection warning system for the brain came about. They will just say it helped them survive. No probabilities regarding the necessary concurrent mutations will ever be mentioned. Second, note that interferon-alpha (INF-a) is central to this signaling process, where the brain is warned of a pending infection days or even weeks before antibodies are formed. INF-a is the first domino in a series of dominos that must fall in order for a wide range of immune activations to take place. It is also the cytokine most directly suppressed by the C19 mRNA injections. Oops. Yet another unintended consequence.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamao… Around $3 billion is spent in the US annually in the treatment of POAG. Vitamin B3 supplementation cuts the risk of developing it by 66%, which would cut the annual cost by about $2 billion. But it's, you know, just a vitamin, so no.

ijidonline.com/article/S1201-… The article linked above is making the case that we should reconsider making hepatitis A vaccination (HAV) a standard childhood shot. Hep A infections, it claims, are rising within pediatric populations. I checked the article for the evidence of that. "National data identified 103 pediatric infections and one fulminant death in a 22-year-old [2]. Furthermore, preliminary 2026 surveillance indicates that incidence continued to rise in the first months of this year, with a marked increase observed in March." That was presumably talking about infections identified in 2025 (103 of them). OK, but then why did it refer to a 22-year-old when it mentioned the "one fulminant death"? A 22-year-old is not pediatric. I read a bit further to see more about these dying pediatric cases of Hep A. "Although infection in children is often asymptomatic or mild, it can lead to severe acute hepatitis and, in rare cases, fulminant liver failure and death [4]." OK, often the infection is nothing but clearly it is occasionally deadly. Let me go check reference [4]... That article makes a single reference to fulminant liver disease that could be fatal, a paper published in Nature in 2018: "In general, symptoms are more severe in the elderly and people with weakened immune system. Particularly patients with chronic liver diseases are at risk of developing fulminant hepatitis A with a possible fatal outcome2,3." It is not referring to pediatric Hep A infections. That article doesn't mention Hep A as a serious health threat for pediatric patients at all. It is only making the case that, because they experience Hep A infection without symptoms (mostly), they can be spreaders and thus should be vaccinated. If we had ever misrepresented the contents of a cited paper in one of ours about the dangers of mRNA shots, the reviewers would have torn us apart for our attempt to deceive our readers. But if the misrepresentation is in favor of shots, it sails through review at one of the most prestigious journals in the field of infectious disease. Go figure.

ijidonline.com/article/S1201-… This paper is ostensibly about whether or not use of steroids on C19 patients had an impact on their risk of severe disease during a post-corticosteroid-intake case of C19 infection. But here is the real gem: "In addition, the severity of reinfection did not differ significantly by vaccination status regardless of corticosteroid therapy status, further supporting the absence of a synergistic or antagonistic interaction." That says vaccination didn't mitigate against a future severe C19 infection. That paragraph was buried about 4/5 of the way into the article. And in the final paragraph the authors try to spin that fact by saying they were relieved to find that corticosteroid intake fortunately didn't impact the effectiveness of vaccinations. It's true. They didn't. That's because the vaccines didn't prevent severe C19 infection post-vaccination, and the steroids didn't make that lack of effectiveness any better or worse.

@grok @ZevLapin @BretWeinstein @LibertyLockPod @grok did Dan Bongina say that the video was grainy and was not high enough quality to be used in a court of law?

@grok @ZevLapin @BretWeinstein @LibertyLockPod @grok can you or has anyone said that the videos said to depict Tyler Robinson on campus that day depict beyond any reasonable doubt that it is in fact Tyler Robinson in the videos?

medicalxpress.com/news/2026-07-e… It should be surprising to exactly no one that this emerging class of viruses that you've never heard of before - nairoviruses - has been the subject of both genetic engineering (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC15…, for example), and vaccine development (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC56…, for example) for over a decade. Rare kinds of viruses seem to have nothing to do lately except emerge.

nature.com/articles/s4153… Compared to the Big Mac, [AI's] delicious burgers score the same or better in overall liking, flavor, and texture in a blinded sensory evaluation conducted in a restaurant setting with 101 participants; its mushroom burger achieves an environmental impact score more than an order of magnitude lower; and its bean burger attains nearly twice the nutritional score. Since humans have clearly been so incompetent at creating delicious food over the millennia, it's way past time for AI to take that job over.

popsci.com/technology/coc… I can't believe how long it has taken for someone to finally figure out how to fit a cockroach with a diving suit.

quantamagazine.org/a-dark-dimensi… Even though scientists have assumed that dark energy and dark matter “don’t have anything to do with each other,” said Tim Tait, a particle physicist at the University of California, Irvine, “you can imagine a case where one influences the other. And it would not be surprising if [they] were manifestations of a kind of unified theory of the dark universe.” Indeed, I can imagine a case where one influences the other. I can also imagine that dark matter is made of pickles, dark energy is left handed, and the two interact with each other via postcards. Dark matter is an ad hoc idea born out of the observation that the strength of gravity associated with the visible mass of the universe isn't strong enough to account for the structures observed. Dark energy is an ad hoc idea born out of the "observation" that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate over time. How could that happen? Oh, well, you just create a magical kind of energy where its repulsive influence on masses gets stronger the further apart those masses are from each other. Duh.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/… "He says the ability to recreate ancient forms of these enzymes marks an important advance in efforts to understand the origins of life on Earth and potentially on other worlds." Evolutionary "science" is nothing more than storytelling dressed up in computer models. How on earth could someone fact check whether these scientists accurately "rebuilt long-extinct versions" of that enzyme? And how on earth did those early-earth nucleic acids just so happen to come together in a functional way to create that hypothetical ancient enzyme? The scientists whose work is described as explaining some evolutionary process never ever ever never ever deal with the real-world probabilities that govern whether or not the evolutionary sequence described could actually happen.

phys.org/news/2026-07-s… Well, isn't that interesting. The 6% increase in the amount of carbon captured by vegetation over the past 20 years is mostly due to the gradual increase in both temperature and sunlight, leading to more plants. It's almost like a self-regulating system.