Henry Cavendish

Henry Cavendish

In 1798, English scientist Henry Cavendish carried out one of the most delicate experiments in history when he “weighed the world.” Using a simple setup of lead spheres suspended by a thin torsion wire, he measured the tiny gravitational attraction between them. This allowed him to calculate the density of the Earth and, indirectly, its total mass, something no one had done before.

Cavendish’s apparatus consisted of a horizontal rod with small lead balls at each end, suspended from a fine wire. Larger stationary lead balls were placed nearby, and the faint twist in the wire caused by gravitational pull was observed with astonishing care. Every movement had to be measured through reflections of light to avoid disturbing the setup, as even breathing near it could ruin the results.

With only 18th century tools, Cavendish’s calculations came within about 1 percent of the modern accepted value for Earth’s mass. His “Cavendish experiment” not only confirmed Newton’s law of universal gravitation but also paved the way for measuring the gravitational constant, a cornerstone of modern physics.

The CO2 Climate Narrative Collapses Under Basic Physics

CO2 Cause Of Global Warming Impossible

For years, we’ve been told that CO2—a trace gas at just 0.04% of the atmosphere—controls Earth’s climate. But a new study in Science of Climate Change exposes the flaw: The data doesn’t add up.

– 93% of warming is in the oceans, yet their temperatures jump erratically, ignoring CO2’s steady rise.

– 1963–70: Cooling. 1970–80: Warming. Post-2000: Stability. Why? Natural solar cycles, clouds, and aerosols—not CO2.

– Satellite and ARGO data confirm: Earth warms when solar input increases. Not because of a trace gas. The IPCC’s models overstate CO2’s role while ignoring the sun’s dominance. Even the remaining 25% of warming is uncertain—cleaner air (fewer aerosols) means fewer clouds, which also warms the planet.

Conclusion: CO2’s impact is minimal. Climate sensitivity is overestimated. No apocalypse—just natural variability. Yet trillions depend on the myth. Who benefits from the fear? The science is settled—just not how they claimed.

https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Vol5.3-Huijser-Balancing-Act.pdf

Flu Vaccine Negative Efficiency 27%

Flu Shot Result Graph

Jeff Childers writes:

Earlier this month, the gold-standard Cleveland Clinic published a shocking study titled, “Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season: A Prospective Cohort Study.” In short, the Clinic found that last year’s flu vaccine was at least as effective at preventing the potentially deadly disease than using Himalayan prayer beads or nailing a dead raccoon over your front door.

Haha, I’m just kidding. According to the study of some 53,000 healthcare professionals, dead raccoons and prayer beads work better than the flu vaccine. The Clinic found that, after about 90 days following the injections —well after any FDA-required postmarketing trials stop looking— staff who got the shots became increasingly more likely to get the flu than their unjabbed coworkers.

In technical terms, the Clinic’s researchers discovered the flu vaccine had a negative efficacy of -27%.

Now look, dummies, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking I’ll just stick with the raccoons. But that’s because you aren’t a $cientist. Unlike you, those profit-seeking professionals know how to say “correlation does not prove causation.” Just because thousands of healthcare workers were more likely to come down with the flu after getting the shots doesn’t prove the shots caused it. It could be anything, like witches. Or anti-vaxxers. Either one.

You really need to learn this lesson. Correlation definitely does not prove causation … unless it tends to show that vaccines work. Then it’s Katy, bar the door.

Finish reading: https://open.substack.com/pub/coffeeandcovid/p/preparedness-monday-october-27-2025

A Tale of Two Wikis: How Grokipedia Corrected Wikipedia’s Misinformation & Cleared My Name

When a machine’s neutrality outshines a platform’s propaganda.

Grokipedia

Sayer Ji writes:

I didn’t expect much when I typed my name into Grokipedia, the new knowledge layer that just launched inside X.

Honestly, I braced for another digital hit job.
But what appeared on screen stopped me cold.

There it was — a calm, accurate, beautifully structured description of who I actually am.

Not the cartoon version that’s haunted Google for years. Not the “anti-vax misinformation spreader” fiction seeded by a British NGO and embalmed into Wikipedia’s bloodstream.

But a living, factual account: researcher, author, founder of GreenMedInfo, student of philosophy, advocate for evidence-based natural healing.

It even got the details right — my studies at Rutgers, my work curating over 100,000 peer-reviewed studies, the intent behind Regenerate, and my advocacy for informed consent.

No slander. No ideological framing. Just clarity.

An AI saw me more accurately than the so-called free encyclopedia, whose anonymous editors have spent years dragging my name through the mud.

https://open.substack.com/pub/sayerji/p/grokipedia-just-did-what-wikipedia