Pinned Tweet
I'd also like to add to this that there arises a grave issue when those who are pandering to a specific demographic warp their beliefs in the name of influence, power or financial gain. Yet again it is analogous to the Purdue incident. Scientists do their research, the research gets debunked, the companies or politicians then ignore the new research (which is a flaw of the scientific method) if it vaguely disagrees with the agenda or drug they are pushing. We've seen this with vaccines, specifically the MMR scandal regarding autism in vaccines which was found to have contained fabricated statistics, was done on an incredibly small cherry picked sample size and whose results have not been reproducible to this day (though many still actively try to prove this association). The amount of roadblocks and cross checking within scientific research is fierce and in all honesty those in the field are pushed equally hard to disprove past findings as they are to pursue new ones. The whole system is built on a consistent fact-checking basis and the entire system HAS to abide by this scientific methodology. When it was first theorized that H. Pylori was the causative agent of stomach ulcers the widely held scientific belief was that bacteria could not even survive in the pH of stomach acid, yet the theory was proven true when time and time again scientists tried to disprove the H. Pylori hypothesis and failed to disprove it time and time again. This research, which yet again was published, was in part met with major backlash by insurance companies, politicians, and pharmaceutical corporations since the existing treatment protocols were financially lucrative for the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Pharmaceutical companies sold billions of dollars in antacid and acid-suppressing drugs, like Tagamet, which treated the symptoms but not the root cause. Insurance companies profited off of partial gastrectomies to treat ulcers, a profitable procedure that would be rendered unnecessary if a simple antibiotic cure were available. Therapists and psychiatric companies, as well as insurance companies profited off of stress treatments since it was said "stress" caused stomach ulcers. In order to finally settle the science, Barry Marshall literally drank a culture of H. pylori to prove it would cause gastritis, which it did, and then treated himself with antibiotics.
Conclusions within the scientific community are not reached through one study or through one individual, they are CONSTANTLY belittled, challenged and tested. The science becomes settled whenever every possible attempt to disprove a finding cannot do so and no amount of narrative twisting by those who are not within scientific research communities stands a chance at distorting the results of the research. It's so frustrating how researchers simply do their jobs and then get their findings twisted out the mouths of corrupt CEOs and politicians and the public backlash focuses on the scientists themselves. Experts are experts for a reason, and if anyone in the scientific community does take bribes or unknowingly prescribe dangerous things it's doctors, who are trained to look at research but more so are constantly briefed by pharma companies on drugs they're selling who typically don't look any further into the matter than the statistics displayed to them by the seller of the drug themselves. Doctors play NO PART in actually DOING the research or scientific discovery and are simply trained on what discovered things are available to treat their patients. Research is a whole different field of medical science. Researchers cannot treat patients but can get data from treated patients and doctors cannot do research besides helping administer clinical trials. Modern science is so fucked because it's not the science that's at fault it's the people who oversee the science and the people who profit from it.
Replying to @Trump__Train__ @ElephantSignal
That's why there are conflict of interest statements in research papers and is also why we laid the legislative hammer down on pharma companies after what Purdue did- Purdue Pharma intentionally misused a single-paragraph letter published in a 1980 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine. The letter, from authors Hershel Jick and Jane Porter, observed a low rate of addiction in a group of closely monitored hospitalized patients who were taking opioids. Purdue's marketing materials then twisted this limited finding into the blanket claim that the risk of addiction was "much less than 1%" for all prescription opioid patients, including those with chronic pain. The company was aware of internal research by Lawrence Robbins et al that found addictive behavior in 8% to 13% of OxyContin patients. Rather than pursuing the concerning nature of these findings, Purdue pushed the ≤1% narrative using the flawed Jick and Porter study; internal documents from 1996 revealed Purdue knew about widespread abuse of OxyContin, the company did nothing to address the issue. The issue yet again, was never the scientists, the scientists knew about the 8-13% statistic. The issue once again was the business aspect, the company and its representatives- who were trained to tell doctors that signs of addiction, such as requests for early refills, were actually signs that the patient's pain was not being treated effectively. They were taught about the fabricated concept of "pseudoaddiction" to encourage doctors to prescribe even higher doses. Purdue also aggressively targeted doctors with meals and gifts, while tracking their prescription habits (which is now illegal). The company often targeted high-prescribing physicians, even those with known histories of improper prescribing (which is now illegal but still occurs) incentivized sales representatives with high commission and fired those who questioned their narrative. They also sent representatives to areas "with high rates of pain" although these yet again were just vulnerable communities like the poor (miners, laborers, etc) the sick or the old. The sales representatives for the most part were doing their job marketing a drug they had been convinced was a solution. Those who held the fault were the higher ups in the company who silenced published studies disagreeing with their claims and brainwashed their sales representatives. The Purdue Scandal is absolutely perfect at capturing what's wrong with modern science and it is NOT the scientists, who were doing valid research and publishing papers warning about Oxycontin. The 1% statistic wasn't even funded by Purdue, it was a small unreliable study done with a tiny sample size on an observed population that was warped by a company. The writer of the "Letter to the Editor" actually ended up suing the company if I recall and deeply regretted publishing it in a paper. Yet again, he was simply doing research, every scientist was doing research and publishing their findings. The key aspect is that science builds and concept proofs nearly constantly and when that 1% statistic was debunked it was no longer in the hands of the scientists, they'd done their job, it was in the hands of politicians, who were lobbied by Purdue. Research is always accurate, interpretations and spins of the research are not. You cannot blame anything within STEM for the actions of corrupt politicians or greedy multinational pharma corporations. There are an insane amount of stage III clinical trials which fail and it's partly due to the much, much heavier restrictions put onto scientific research after the Purdue incident and subsequent opioid crisis. If anything due to that science is more transparent than ever, people just will be people and trust "experts" without medical degrees who say what they will say about data that they cannot even begin to comprehend. Truth is truth coming from an unbiased expert, no one going to law or business can be an expert in medicine.
Evan Chiefer retweeted
For those in the #Weather community,
NCEP NOMADS (NOAA Operational Model Archive and Distribution System) Grib Filter is down, presumably due to the security vulnerabilities found recently.
Image 1: How it looked previously
Image 2: How it currently looks
Messing with data from Drifting Buoy 2802285- which Champi scraped with it's SW eyewall. Seeing that pressure was likely considerably lower than JTWC estimate of 895mb. I keep getting most likely estimates of 886±2mb. Absolutely insane if this verifies in post-season analysis.
Have we ever had a sub 900mb storm with even close to an eye this size? The amount of air missing in the center is uncanny.
If Champi can constrict it's eye, it'll probably take the title for strongest cyclone globally. Per ARCHER it's almost 40 miles wide. The amount of energy it takes for 180mph sustained winds and a pressure of 906-907mb in an eye this large is genuinely close to unfathomable.
DPRINT is pushing 150kts with VMAX 75% at 157kts. DMINT is pushing 155kts with VMAX 75% at 162kts. SATCON seconds 155kt. Absolute powerhouse of a storm.
"doctor" doesn't know the difference between measles and chickenpox
Just a reminder that measles is so dangerous that boomers had parties to make sure they caught it.
Meanwhile, the average American is headed for:
Heart attacks
Strokes
Cancers
That are largely preventable.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The claim confuses common chickenpox parties with measles parties. Measles parties were uncommon and measles has always carried higher risks, including complications in about 30% of cases.
live959.com/measles-partie…
cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/t…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party
Wild how the anti vaccine movement is just absolutely full of corruption.
Records confirm CSO role and equity in The Wellness Company offering telehealth for vaccine injury claims. He promoted early HCQ/ivermectin protocols. Papers he co-authored were retracted for unsupported conclusions and flaws. 2025 court excluded expert reports for unreliable methods and false facts. "Fabricating" or "creating a fake problem" are interpretive labels beyond those verified issues.
Ngl the terms and conditions on this are fucking insane. All of this just to use their little money thing.
•Your payments feed X's ad targeting: Details of your transactions, including who you pay, amounts, dates and purchase descriptions, are shared with X Corp along with identifiers linking them to your X account so X can personalize the ads you see. US users can opt out; UK users have to give consent first. US users have it on by default until turn it off.
•AI training:
They can use your data to train their own AI models, and outside of the UK, their service providers may use your info for their own purposes, including training their own AI, this is not a common clause to see.
•Financial info marked for ad sharing:
Their disclosure table marks bank account and card numbers "Yes" for sharing for targeted advertising. Kinda nuts.
•Aggressive identity linking:
They may tie your account to devices you never signed in on, and to hashes of email addresses that share parts of yours.
•Message contents:
They collect the contents of messages, along with who received them and when they were sent.
All of this INCLUDING the standard "bank" clauses like:
•SSN, ID photo, selfie and biometrics
•Plaid reading transactions
All of this for your money to be directed to a third party bank, namely The Cross River Bank. To note, The FDIC has hit this bank with a consent order saying it engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices related to fair lending regulations. An independent analysis by the Project on Government Oversight discovered that Cross River Bank and Celtic Bank alone were involved in 30% of all Department of Justice fraudulent PPP loan prosecutions nationwide. Separate consumer lawsuits (such as the Bowe lawsuit in Ohio) accused Cross River Bank of actively colluding with predatory solar installers to trick homeowners into predatory, high-interest financing plans for equipment that didn't work. In late 2024, investors hit Cross River with a major proposed securities fraud class-action lawsuit (Wax v. Cross River Bank). The suit accused the bank of participating in a fraudulent scheme to hide $764 million in bad solar panel loans issued by a partner company, Sunlight Financial, keeping risky debt off its balance sheet until Sunlight went bankrupt. Cross River has also been sued by state governments for acting as a shield for predatory tech companies. In a famous multi-year lawsuit brought by the State of Colorado, prosecutors alleged that online fintech companies were using Cross River's bank charter as a legal loophole to bypass state caps on interest rates, allowing them to charge consumers illegal, usurious interest.
All of this, for unusual highly aggressive data collecting terms. Would you let your bank see your messages? Would you share your contacts? Let them train AI to better target you for purchases based off the bills you pay?
money.x.com/en/privacy-polic…
today.westlaw.com/Document/I…)
govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCO…
njbiz.com/cross-river-bank-c…
@grok would you use this? Rationally and logically would you, if you were a person, use this money program knowing what you know after reading terms and publicly available information?






































