All Episodes
Previous Next
March 14, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
32:26
95% of scientists FAIL this SCIENCE QUIZ
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Mike Adams.
They're making trillions of dollars off your sickness and disease and suffering, and it's all because that's the model in Washington.
It's about who pays for sickness and disease, not about figuring out how to make the population healthy.
The Health Ranger Report.
You want to figure out how to make the population healthy, you ask a guy like me to come in and design a system.
And believe me, I would put drug companies out of business.
It's time for the Health Ranger Report.
And now from NaturalNews.com, here's Mike Adams.
So I developed a science quiz that 95% of status quo scientists fail.
It's amazing.
I was stunned to learn how little most mainstream scientists actually know about science.
And I found this out because, you know, I'm, as a laboratory science researcher, and, you know, I'm publishing science papers, I've been awarded a science patent by the U.S. Patent Office for a radiation removal formulation that can actually save Potentially millions of lives, by the way, in a nuclear accident.
I'll talk about that more later.
But as a scientist myself, I found that most so-called scientists are intellectually lazy because they've been working in academia and government.
And in academia and government...
There's no accountability.
It's like you just get endless money to sit around and do nothing.
And I'm routinely finding that the things I'm doing in the lab are so much more advanced than any university lab is just astonishing.
But then again, I've had a fight for everything.
I'm from the private sector.
I've had to innovate.
I've had to work hard.
I've had to have great nutrition and just be highly, highly effective and intelligent about things.
Whereas if I were in a university, you could get really lazy.
You could get really comfortable.
You could have your pension and your...
Your seniority and your government grant money and that's it.
So, you know, they get lazy really quickly.
Anyway, so I developed a science quiz.
That 95% of status quo scientists fail.
I'll give you the five questions here.
It's just five questions.
And rarely do I encounter a scientist who can answer even one of them correctly.
Usually they get all five wrong, and they're just true or false.
So by chance alone, they should get two or three right if they were just flipping a coin.
But instead, they get all five wrong.
It's astonishing.
So here we go.
Here are the five questions.
Number one, true or false?
In a vacuum, the speed of light is a constant.
True or false?
Alright, number two, true or false?
In mammals, the lungs produce enormous quantities of blood platelets.
Right, blood.
That's not a typo.
Okay, number three, true or false?
At over 400 parts per million, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are now the highest they've ever been on our planet.
True or false?
Number four, true or false, mercury is extremely toxic in the environment, but totally safe when injected into children via vaccines.
True or false?
And the last one, number five, true or false, type 2 diabetes can be reversed and cured.
All right, so I'll go through quickly the correct answers to these questions.
And by the way, when you say, well, how do I know what's correct?
Just to let you know, I'm actually quoting mainstream science in the answers to these questions.
So I'm citing science journals, peer-reviewed science journals, ScienceDaily.com, ScienceAlert, other scientific websites, AlphaGalileo, and so on, in these answers.
So I'm actually citing mainstream science.
These aren't my opinions.
So here are the correct answers.
Oh, by the way, you can get this test.
You can see it at naturalnews.com.
Just go to Natural News and search for science quiz.
Yeah, search for science quiz.
It'll get you right to this.
All right, answer number one.
True or false, in a vacuum, the speed of light is a constant.
The correct answer is false.
The speed of light is not a constant, even though nearly every scientist has been incorrectly taught that the speed of light is a constant.
Turns out, it isn't a constant.
And this has been borne out by new experiments.
And I quote one experiment at ScienceNews.org, an experiment led by an optical physicist named Miles Padgett at the University of Glasgow.
And he has shown that if you alter the structure of light, its speed changes.
It actually gets a little bit slower than the accepted speed.
So the structure of light, just changing the structure, slows it down.
So the speed of light is not a constant, it's actually a limit.
It's a limit.
You got that?
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but light itself can go slower than the commonly accepted value for c, which is usually the constant for speed of light.
And if you're wondering, why is c the speed of light?
Well, you may have seen it before, e equals mc squared.
Does that ring a bell?
Anyway...
We'll discuss that another time.
So the other thing, though, that's really fascinating about this is that the speed of light is a science hoax because the definition of the speed of light, as described by the U.S. government through the NIST, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, the speed of light is defined in a circular reasoning way that makes it a quack science hoax.
They literally define the speed of light as being derived from How quickly light traverses one meter?
Sounds good so far?
Like if you want to know the speed of a car, you would have a timer and you would see how long it takes the car to go, let's say, 100 meters.
And then you'd be able to get X number of meters per second for the car, right?
Makes perfect sense.
So they do the same thing for light.
They measure how long it takes light to go one meter.
But here's the kicker.
Here's the hoax.
What's the definition of a meter?
The meter is defined, get this, as the distance that light is traversed in a given fraction of a second.
In other words, the speed of light is defined based on the length of a meter, and the length of the meter is defined based on the speed of light.
It's circular reasoning.
It's a science hoax.
It's like if you were going to open the dictionary and try to find what's the definition of the word foot.
What is a foot?
And you open the dictionary, you get to the foot entry and it says, see foot.
That's it.
It's circular reasoning.
That's not scientific.
And even more importantly...
If there is natural cyclical variation in the speed of light in our cosmos, and by the way, early light detection studies indicate that the speed of light may have indeed changed over time, but if it does change, those changes will now be completely hidden from scientists because the speed of light cancels itself out in the equation that's derived from the definition of the meter, which references the speed of light itself.
I hope that makes sense.
But therefore, if light, if the speed of light actually does speed up or slow down in the cosmos, we won't know it because it's not covered in the definition.
The definition itself is fixed by decree as a matter of faith.
And this is very important because it's the Roman Catholic Church.
That once attacked science and attacked the kinds of ideas of Newton or Kepler or other scientists, I'm not saying that the Catholic Church attacked them in particular, but they attacked those kinds of ideas rooted in science because the Roman Catholic Church said that God is divine and it's a matter of faith that you must believe the earth is the center of the universe and everything orbits around the earth and heaven is up in the sky and so on.
And that was attacked by scientists who said, no, it has to be based on the evidence and reason.
But today, science has become the Roman Catholic Church because they say you have to accept the speed of light based on what?
Faith.
Yes, you have to trust that the NIST's number is the correct number, even though the very definition of the speed of light is a hoax, an illogical, irrational hoax that frankly resembles the logic of the Roman Catholic Church.
It's just astonishing.
So now we have a new Church of Science.
And we have the speed of light.
And we have other constants.
And we're told you're just supposed to believe that those constants are whatever we tell you they are.
That's what science has become.
It's quite pathetic.
Anyway, I've taken too much time to answer that question.
I'm not speaking at the speed of light, unfortunately.
Let's go on to the next one.
True or false?
In mammals, the lungs produce enormous quantities of blood platelets.
Turns out the answer is true.
The lungs are now suddenly recognized as having a previously unrecognized role in generating a massive amount of blood.
In fact, in mice they've been found to generate more blood than bone marrow.
And it has long been believed by doctors and experts in physiology and anatomy and so on that blood was only produced really in bone marrow.
You know, and no one, I mean, lungs, they told us, were only used for respiration.
Now it turns out, I just discovered, lungs make a lot of blood.
They make more blood than the bones.
So how can this be when you have doctors who claim to know everything?
You have medical science that claims to know everything, claims to know how to treat cancer, you know, with poison, of course.
Claims to know everything about physiology, claims that they have all the answers and that nothing from nature could ever surprise them because they know everything.
They say herbs are useless.
They say nutrition is useless.
They say vitamins are useless.
They say superfoods are useless.
They say mind-body medicine is useless because they know everything.
And then suddenly we find out that for thousands of years they have missed the fact that the lungs produce more blood than the bones.
Huh.
What does that tell you?
Tells you that modern doctors and medical scientists don't know as much as they think they know, doesn't it?
Yeah, should be a little bit humbling for them, but of course they're arrogant, so they're not going to be humbled by anything.
Let's move on.
True or false, at over 400 parts per million, carbon dioxide levels are now the highest they've ever been in the history of our planet.
Now, most people, especially younger, quote, scientists, if you can even call them that, they think, oh my God, carbon dioxide is so high.
It's so high.
It's the highest it's ever been.
It's almost 400 parts per million.
It's going to destroy our civilization.
It's going to melt all the ice.
The oceans are going to rise.
It's going to be a tidal wave.
The Statue of Liberty will be underwater with just a little torch sticking out of the ocean.
This is what they believe.
Literally, scientists believe this.
Little do they know that if you look at the whole history of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, I'm talking about the concentration, the atmospheric concentration of CO2, throughout, I don't know, let's say 600 million years of Earth's history, which is obviously not the entire history of the Earth, but a significant portion of it.
Right now, the level of carbon dioxide that we are experiencing right at this moment is almost the lowest of the low that it has ever been in the history of the planet.
It's so low.
It's almost the lowest.
In fact, carbon dioxide has been upwards of over 5,000 parts per million, maybe even as much as 7,000 parts per million.
Yeah.
Yeah, more than 10 times higher than what it is now.
It has been that high in the past, and it has fluctuated up and down, and it did so hundreds of millions of years before modern humans were here.
And I hope that young scientists would have the intelligence to understand that men did not run Ford diesel pickups with the dinosaurs.
I would just hope that maybe there could be some level of intelligence and rationality in today's university-trained scientists who do realize that the Industrial Revolution is just the blink of an eye in terms of the time versus the age of the planet itself.
I mean, what are we talking about here?
Maybe 150 years?
Maybe 200 years max, if you want to call the real rise of the combustion engine.
More like 150.
Really more like 100 years only.
I mean, a century.
That's it, really.
The combustion engine, the use of fossil fuels.
I mean, seriously, when did it really start taking off?
You know, like maybe the 1920s is when it started taking off.
So, a hundred years.
That's it.
A hundred years versus hundreds of millions of years of Earth's history, and the carbon dioxide level is right now at virtually the lowest it has ever been in the planet's history.
Hmm.
And yet, these climate change people think that it's the highest it's ever been.
How can they be so wrong?
The answer is very simple.
If you take a whole chart of the CO2 levels throughout the history of the planet, there's a lot of ups, you know, like 7,000 parts per million and down, goes down to like 2,000 parts per million, swings back up to 4,000 parts per million, and then it slowly settles down over to the...
What you might imagine is the bottom right-hand corner of this chart, where it reaches its very little lowest of the low, just under 400 parts per million.
And then at the very last little piece of that chart, it upticks a little bit.
It goes up to 400 parts per million.
If you were to zoom into that little, little tiny corner of that entire chart, you could make it look...
Like, it's been low since about the 1750s, and, you know, the year 1750, I'm saying, and that it's been rising now for the last hundred years.
If you zoom in, you can make it look apocalyptic.
In truth, we are still on nothing more than a little tiny fraction of a slight uptick of the lowest of the low point of carbon dioxide in the history of the planet.
And that the high levels existed before humanity ever existed, before combustion engines ever existed, before fossil fuels ever existed.
And then you take into account the fact that it turns out that marine life, and by marine, I hope you understand that I'm talking about the oceans, not the Pentagon.
Marine life is full of lots of creatures that, like humans, exhale CO2.
And the life mass in the oceans vastly outnumbers both the quantity and also the biomass of human lives on land, I hope.
I hope young scientists would know that as well, but I guess I can't assume anything anymore.
There are vastly more creatures in the ocean than there are walking around as humans on land.
That's what I'm trying to say.
And many of those creatures exhale CO2. The oceans produce, through the respiration of the creatures living in the ocean, they produce vastly more CO2 than humankind does.
So most of the CO2 that's actually produced on the planet comes from Ocean life.
Yes, ocean life.
And ocean life has been here, well, how long?
A lot longer than you and your Prius.
Like hundreds of, well, more than hundreds of millions of years.
Billions of years longer than you and your Prius and your wood-burning stove or whatever you think is polluting the environment.
So the truth is that human CO2 is nothing in the big picture.
But then again, young scientists don't know that, which makes me wonder how they can call themselves scientists.
It's really just pseudoscience.
All right, let me move on to question four.
True or false?
Mercury is extremely toxic in the environment, but totally safe when you inject it into children via vaccines.
Believe it or not, most, quote, scientists say that's true because they think that mercury becomes inert when it's injected into the body of a child.
It's astonishing.
These are the same scientists that say, oh my God, there's mercury in the water, there's mercury in the oceans, there's mercury in tuna fish.
There's mercury in coal, right?
That's one of the primary pollutants.
Coal-fired power plants is dropping mercury all over the place.
It's true.
It does.
There is some mercury in coal.
And when you burn it, the mercury goes into the air, and it gets dropped onto forests and farms and everywhere else.
That's true.
That's all true.
But then they say...
Hey, let's take the mercury and inject it into children in a slightly different form, ethylmercury, instead of the methylmercury that's usually in the environment.
And then they say it's completely safe.
Have you ever heard of a more quack science, pseudoscience explanation for mercury, quote, safety in vaccines?
That's insane!
This is one of the most neurotoxic elements on the table of elements.
And in my lab, by the way, I test for mercury all the time.
I'm the author of the book called Food Forensics.
It's the number one best-selling science book on Amazon for a period of time.
Not right now, but it was.
And I've tested over 800 different foods and pet foods and dietary supplements for toxic heavy metals, including mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic.
And also nutritive elements such as copper, magnesium, potassium, zinc, things like that.
I use an ICP-MS mass spec instrument in my lab, among other instruments.
I also use a time-of-flight system for other molecules, larger molecules.
Nevertheless, I've done a lot of testing of mercury.
And if you study mercury and you look at it in foods and you look at its behavior, even in laboratory analysis, you find that mercury, just in terms of its electron orbitals and its chemical So mercury is damaging to all mammals, and in fact, nearly all forms of life, even if they're not mammals.
This is a widely accepted fact across all of science, except then, quote, science carves out this exception to say, except when you inject it into a child.
Then they say it's safe.
It's absurd!
Mercury is toxic in all its forms, by the way.
Organic, inorganic, methyl, ethyl, elemental mercury, even, is toxic, by the way.
I've put out a...
Oh, I should tell you this, too.
The amount of mercury in a flu shot...
Well, the concentration...
Get this...
The EPA has a limit of mercury in municipal drinking water of two parts per billion.
So if you are drinking more than two parts per billion of mercury, any kind, then the EPA says that's illegal.
But in a flu shot, the CDC says you can have 50,000 parts per billion mercury or even higher.
They actually don't set a limit.
But when I tested flu shots in my lab using ICP-MS instrumentation, I found that a flu shot has over 50,000 parts per billion mercury, making it 25,000 times higher concentration of mercury than the EPA's limit of mercury in water.
In other words, if you took a flu shot and put it into the water, it would be a crime.
It would be a crime to drink it, right?
Or to feed it to a child to drink it.
But to inject it into a child is considered perfectly legal.
That's status quo science for you right there, rooted in lunacy and mercury denialism.
All right, let's move on to the last question, number five.
True or false?
Type 2 diabetes can be reversed and cured.
To understand the correct answer on this, and the correct answer is true, of course.
You first have to understand what is diabetes.
Unlike diseases that are caused by parasites or infections, such as, let's say, malaria, type 2 diabetes is not an invasion of your body.
It's not a parasite.
It's not a bacteria.
It's not a viral infection.
Nothing.
What it is is a label given to a pattern of symptoms that are observable by doctors or other people.
Symptoms such as insulin insensitivity among the body's cells where they're not able to be sensitive to insulin and thereby absorb glucose in your blood and so on.
And these symptoms are not a disease.
They are a name.
Diabetes is the name for a pattern of symptoms.
And you can make the symptoms go away by changing what you eat and changing your lifestyle.
So if you stop sitting on the couch and don't pursue a sedentary lifestyle, stop eating processed foods, stop drinking sugar, specifically sodas, high fructose corn syrup, and you move to a raw food diet or a juicing diet or a very, very health-oriented diet, you can literally very health-oriented diet, you can literally reverse type 2 diabetes in some cases in as little as four days.
Four days, no insulin needed, no medication ever for the rest of your life.
You can reverse type 2 diabetes.
Now, how do I know this?
Well, I'll give you three reasons.
Number one, I used to be borderline type 2 diabetic maybe 15-20 years ago.
I cured my own pre-diabetes by doing exactly what I'm telling you about.
And I have never experienced any symptoms of diabetes ever since.
Very simple.
Gave up soda.
Gave up refined sugar.
Got healthy.
Started doing chia seeds, flax seeds, healthy omega-3 oils, drinking smoothies made with avocados.
All these kinds of things.
Very simple.
Good quality protein.
Plant-based diet for the most part, but also some healthy free-range meats at the same time.
Healthy fats, including some saturated animal fat, by the way.
I don't live a life without butter.
I use butter.
No big deal.
It's healthy.
It's actually good for you.
And the new science is finding that, by the way.
Second thing is I've interviewed people at the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center in Patagonia, Arizona, where Dr.
Gabriel Cousins has the center there, and he teaches people how to do a lot of juicing and how to cleanse themselves of the toxic foods they've been eating and how to transform their health.
And I have personally interviewed people who have reversed type 2 diabetes in as little as four days.
And believe it or not, I've also interviewed a type 1 diabetic who was able to get completely off of insulin and effectively reverse type 1 diabetes.
Using that approach, even though I know what you're saying, that type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disorder and it's permanent damage of the pancreas and so on.
Not true.
Not true at all.
In fact, I've seen research, and I read probably over 100 science headlines every day, and I've done it for over 10 years, Because I have to assign stories to my writing staff about all these articles, so I'm going through all the science headlines every day.
Type 1 diabetes has even been reversed in using micro-injections of capsicum.
Yeah, like hot peppers.
Hot pepper juice into the pancreas using a surgical procedure and little microinjections.
It has been able to reverse or reactivate the pancreatic cells that produce insulin.
So that is out there as well.
I haven't even really covered that in much detail.
But that's also known to exist.
Oh, and what's the third thing?
Well, the third thing is that, as I quote in my article, now mainstream science is saying that, yeah, they can reverse about 40% of type 2 diabetes patients using what they call a combination of lifestyle changes and some medication, although I'm not sure which medication they're using, plus insulin.
They say they can reverse 40% of type 2 diabetes.
So now even...
Even the mainstream is saying that diabetes can be reversed.
While those of us who have promoted holistic nutrition, we've been advocating type 2 diabetes reversal for decades.
You know, I've been talking about it for 15 years, and there were many others who talked about it long before I did.
People have been reversing type 2 diabetes for decades.
Pioneering nutritionists, complementary medicine or alternative medicine doctors, Chinese medicine doctors, and so on.
Type 2 diabetes is not hard to reverse, especially if you catch it early.
It's actually very easy to reverse.
If you look at a typical diabetes patient, number one, they're drinking soda.
They're almost always drinking soda.
Number two, they're getting a lot of trans fatty acids and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils from genetically modified soy products.
Very easy.
Look, you show me a diabetic, I can write down the top ten things they eat.
It's very easy.
Canola oil, corn oil, vegetable oils, sugars, high fructose corn syrup, sodas, processed food, fried food, bleached, refined white flour.
Just garbage, garbage, garbage.
These kind of people, you see them in line at the grocery store, their carts are just full of disease-causing crap, and they're usually buying it on food stamps, by the way.
Yeah, literally, the taxpayers are funding diabetes.
And then pay in for the medical treatments for the diabetes, too, because these people are usually being subsidized for Obamacare, health care.
It's insane.
It's like you're paying people to eat their way to disease, and then you're paying more to treat the disease with things that don't even work, when what you should be doing is have a food stamp program that only allows them to buy healthy foods.
And then they'd be healthy, and you wouldn't have the health care costs because they wouldn't be getting diabetes, because diabetes is cause and effect.
In any case, I could go on more about diabetes as causes, how to reverse it, all these kinds of things.
But the point is, this science quiz, these five questions, most scientists get all five wrong.
And very few, only 1 in 20 typically will get all five right.
And those are usually ones who know a little bit about alternative medicine, natural medicine, and so on.
So what does this really tell you in summary?
The truth is that A lot of scientists like to claim that because they can throw that label of science out in front of them, in front of themselves, they think that they know everything, they're right and you're wrong because you're not a scientist like they are, and they claim that science alone is the sole divine monopoly on truth and facts.
And it's hogwash.
Science is not a set of facts.
Science is a process.
And that's why real scientists are people like me who pursue a process of exploring and expanding human knowledge, looking at the evidence, and perhaps even in some cases changing our beliefs in accordance with the new evidence that shows how the natural world and the cosmos really works.
And the truth is, the natural world, the laws of nature, are far more mysterious and interesting than what most scientists could possibly imagine.
Again, going back to question number one, is the speed of light a constant?
It's not a constant.
Isn't that interesting?
Most scientists, just boring and lazy, they'll say, no, it's a constant, and move on.
What if we live in a cosmos where the speed of light was not a constant?
What would that mean about everything that you think you know about the way the cosmos works?
Wouldn't that be intriguing if it were actually a limit and not a constant?
Yes, it would be.
And it turns out that is the universe in which we live.
And yet most scientists aren't even really curious enough to wonder about that.
And that's the thing.
You know what makes a good scientist?
It's curiosity.
Curiosity, critical thinking, and an ability to question the status quo.
To ask critical questions of the dogmatic church of scientism, the Roman Catholic Church version of science, where the status quo mainstream science institutions demand that you bow down and be obedient to their dogmatic assertions of absolute truth.
That's nonsense.
That isn't science at all.
That's just dogma.
That's just pseudoscience pretending to be science.
Real science happens when you ask big questions and you have big curiosity and you are willing to challenge the status quo with new knowledge, with new evidence, with new theories even.
That may not always pan out, but at least you've got to be willing to ask the questions and see what pans out.
Science is a process of discovery, but instead, in our world today, it's been turned into a dogma of oppression, of human knowledge.
And that's a shame.
Because science should never be dominated by corporate interests.
Science should never be determined by the poison-pushing biotech companies and the pesticide manufacturers and the toxic mercury vaccine pushers.
Science is something that should be accessible to each and every person.
It should be grassroots.
It should be distributed and decentralized.
Science...
It's a process that is within reach of each and every one of us.
Science should be democratized, I say.
And I am a living example of that beautiful process playing out right now as an independent scientist running an independent lab and asking independent, critical, intelligent questions about the dogma of science that's being shoved down our throats by the quack science status quo pushers Astonishing, isn't it?
Well, you can learn more by reading some of my websites.
Scientific.News is one of them.
Also read Vaccines.News if you want to know the real science behind vaccines and their ingredients, by the way, which do include African green monkey kidney cells.
You can find that at Vaccines.News.
Also check out NaturalNews.com and my podcast website is HealthRangerReport.com Thank you for listening and take care.
Click subscribe to stay plugged in to the HealthRanger Report.
Support our films for humanity.
▲
Export Selection