Dr. Kory, you are my special hero. But, I hate all tattoos, even yours. Other than that, I bought your book on chlorine dioxide. It reads like a mystery combined with science and humor. What a great read. As for 'insufficient evidence,' that's a bad joke that means 'you didn't want to find any, right?"
AI of course relies heavily on this excuse, as well as other bad behaviors, like forgetting previously stated variables, citing unreliable sources, arguing for corporate perspectives, repeating tech instructions that didn't work the first three times, outright lying, and even, (to much laughter) denying its name and then saying, 'Oh, you're right. I AM [fill in blank].' I have yet to consult AI without discovering these defects. It's easy to get fast data from AI, but accurate analysis, steered by possibly mischievous coders, is usually beyond its capability.
I decided to check in with a few AI models as to their take on Pattern Recognition vs. Scientific Method. My prompt? "Pattern recognition as an invaluable tool beyond the confines of the scientific method (for identifying causality)"
Alter AI (alter.systems) had the best, most comprehensive response. And with followup questions revealed how pattern recognition exposes institutional blind spots - - particularly in the medical industry. Give it a try!
Some highlights:
Pattern Recognition vs. the Scientific Method: A False Dichotomy: Every scientific hypothesis starts as a pattern someone noticed.
The Scientific Method's Structural Blind Spots:
- Publication bias
- p-hacking and HARKING
- Correlation ≠ causation, but also: absence of correlation ≠ absence of causation
The Replication Crisis as Proof
Where Each Tool Excels
The Real-World Consequence
How Pattern Recognition Exposes Institutional Blind Spots
- Paradigms filter perception before evidence even arrives
- Expertise is often a form of trained blindness
- Institutions reward pattern reinforcement, not pattern recognition
- The blind spot is usually where the money is
The blind spot is usually where the money is.
"Evidence-based" has become a rhetorical weapon, not a methodological standard (and shares several concrete failure modes).
In modern medicine, "insufficient evidence" rarely means a treatment doesn't work. It usually just means no pharma company could patent it to pay for the trial. Excellent breakdown of epistemic capture
People use anecdotal evidence to choose a dentist, a college, a house, and a job. But they can't use anecdotal evidence to choose a popular drug (or herb) for a cold or a headache? Seriously?
As seen in the clinical trials for BNT162b2, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are riddled with deception. The same is likely true for conventional pharmaceuticals, unless the trials are conducted by a completely neutral, independent body.
Vaccines are a special case, but even for standard drugs—where RCTs might involve only a few thousand participants—the results for the broader population are merely based on extrapolation.
At present, there is enough variation in human DNA (as well as proteins, peptides, amino acids, and enzymes) to distinguish between 7 trillion individuals.
Patients who did not participate in an RCT are prescribed treatments based on the effects and side effects extrapolated from those trials.
Even in physics—where phenomena can be modeled and projected using mathematical formulas—extrapolation requires great caution.
For extrapolation to be valid, the scope of its applicability must be understood beforehand from an entirely different perspective.
In medicine, where phenomena cannot be captured by mathematical formulas, attempting to extrapolate findings across 7 trillion people is fundamentally and highly precarious.
It seems that doctors are left to deal with the fallout—or, in some cases, they may simply choose to ignore it.
I suspect that observational clinical trials (OCTs)—which typically involve much larger numbers of people than RCTs—might actually be better suited for this kind of extrapolation.
As always, a pleasure and intellectual stimulant to read your musings. Hubba, hubba!
Readers deserve to know at least enough of the background and qualifications of any writer to decide where to place them on the scale of "that makes sense" to "what a load of BS," so...........I'm an exceptionally overeducated and deeply flawed old man: PhD from University of Florida in Experimental Psychology, postdoctoral fellowship in Behavioral Pharmacology at Harvard Medical School, employed at the National Institute on Drug Abuse where I was fired (told to resign) when someone made the observation that drugs do not evaporate from the drug cabinet--that someone must be taking them.
That being said, it distressed me even many years ago (early 1980s) how researchers bowed down to the gods of deductive thinking and the 95% statistical significance threshold. Whenever I see results confused as facts because p < 0.05 in some research paper I want to scream that this is only another way of saying that their results had a 1 in 20 chance of happening by chance (actually much higher since only papers that show statistically significant results tend to get published). The use of confidence intervals may be slightly more convincing than p values but they still share all the drawbacks of statistical analyses. Failure to test, or even mention, underlying assumptions, experimental designs picked to favor a certain result, cherry-picked or massaged data--the list goes on. In medical research, where ones paycheck increasingly depends upon Big Pharma support and getting the results to justify that support the pressure must be tremendous. It's no longer "publish or perish" but "publish what we want or perish." Big Pharma and it's lapdog certifying boards and agencies can then prescribe only the protocols they paid for.
I'm 75 years old and can count on one hand the number of times I have seen an M.D. in the last 25 years, precisely for the reasons discussed by Dr Kory in his essay above. The physicians of my youth, who observed their patients carefully, inductively came to certain conclusions about them and their symptoms and had the intellectual honesty to admit when they were wrong and to change course when they were, simply do not exist in any significant numbers any more. I can read a PDR, or increasingly now the DSM-V, as well as the next Big Pharma huckster who got where he is today primarily because of a good memory for what he has been told. I made the mistake of going to a "sports medicine" doctor (in the last 25 years) because I had a swollen bursa on my left elbow that seemed to be taking too long to heal. He glanced at it, told me not to worry, and asked if I had any other problems. I told him yes, that I was having trouble sleeping because my elbow hurt (chuckle). He became very agitated and said: "You're not sleeping! Are you depressed? Are you having suicidal thoughts?" Please. I made another mistake (also in the last 25 years) by deciding that I should get a "primary physician." After sitting through what seemed like a 600 item medical questionnaire, he told me my blood pressure was excellent, pulse rate was in the mid-50s and my blood work was all good but he was going to prescribe a blood pressure medication because I was at that age when people started to need them. Please, again.
Today my primary physician consists of reading the likes of Dr Kory, Dr McCullough, A Midwestern Doctor, Dr Marik and a bunch of others, plus a host of holistic authors. Keep up the good work Dr K--gotta go make up some more Aurmina water.
Oof. Harsh but true. Sad state of affairs; my favorite was, "they had the intellectual honesty to admit when they were wrong and to change course when they were " for some reason, I had no problem with adopting that stance and am always shocked to hear how few others are - getting it right was always more important to me than being right
Great quote from p. 216 of Earth’s Living Water— Modern water treatment define success as regulatory compliance. If Water meets contaminate limits, maintains disinfectant, residuals, and move safely through pipes, it is considered treated. Whether that water is mineral – complete, redox – balanced, or biologically supportive is rarely asked.”
This, to me is as the question, “Is this doctor credentialed— or educated?
Think about vaccines. There are no randomly controlled trials with true placebos. Then they reject all the observational studies as well. It's madness.
Thank-you for sharing your experience and writing such a good essay!
Regarding the sidelined critics of accepted protocols- they are probably tolerated because even liars are concerned for their own health. They want the truth for themselves, but not for the masses they consume.
The “medicine” hucksters are parasites consuming their hosts. That’s probably why in times past many doctors were called “leeches”. It wasn’t just because they used actual leeches.
As always, the main problem is corruption- good vs. evil. Evil is more abundant, I think. Especially when Christianity is suppressed.
An important form of medical intelligence cannot be manufactured in a laboratory, purchased by pharmaceutical companies, or adequately captured in a randomized controlled trial. It develops through years of observing patients, recognizing patterns, listening deeply, making mistakes, and learning from the extraordinary complexity of human suffering. It is called clinical intelligence, and modern medicine risks sacrificing it on the altar of statistical authority.
One of my favorite doctors, Pierre Kory, MD, had the words INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE tattooed on his arm. The words insufficient evidence can become a convenient way to dismiss common sense, clinical experience, and even the suffering of the patient standing before us. Behind these two words, scientific uncertainty can become an excuse for intellectual arrogance.
The absence of conclusive proof is not proof that something is worthless, nor does it justify refusing to investigate what experienced physicians observe. When intelligence becomes more devoted to defending its rules than discovering the truth or relieving suffering, it loses its humanity. That is when intelligence becomes cruel—the cruelty of intelligence masquerading as scientific wisdom.
It’s so frustrating that public figures claiming “insufficient evidence” were never challenged - - mostly because they would only grant interviews to sycophants or mainstream media - - to demonstrate why their evidence _against_ a given treatment was superior to the evidence presented in _support_ of one.
Btw… I haven’t checked recently… but as of a couple of months ago Chat GPT, Claude, and Grok still have to be cornered before they will look at the studies on c19early.org
It’s more than that. The media is “owned” and the owners have control over what is shared. Most of the ads are pharmaceuticals, and the owners are probably heavily invested. More alarming is how censored we ALL are. During Covid especially, but today also, people are restricted or erased
On Facebook and YouTube when saying something unapproved. They allow the basest pornography, but remove the politically incorrect. That was my biggest signal that the Covid shots were a scam. President Trump had a group of doctors he called “America’s Frontline Doctors” speak and stand on the front steps of the Capitol building, I believe, at the beginning of Covid. I somehow caught a glimpse of this somewhere and went looking for more on YouTube, only to find videos removed or missing or soon to be removed. I found out some of the doctors’ names and was able to find more information that warned me about the coming Covid vaccines. When people are silenced, you know that something bad is being covered up.
My ‘favorite’ is how pro-Covid Vax people scroll to the end of Fraiman et al’s analysis of Pfizer’s own data, and they yell “see it says the evidence is *preliminary*.”
My response is always… “look at the data that Pfizer submitted to the FDA for an EUA… they acknowledged their evidence was *preliminary* as well.”
Excellent. I noticed medical care getting less effective in the early 1990’s and now I know at least partly why. It seems like they’ve lost common sense. Pattern recognition is so important. Ask any intuitive, connected, nurturing mom. We know when our kids are sick or getting sick. Because their patterns change. I knew my kid was getting strep throat because 3 days prior to symptoms, their breath smelled differently. When my son was 5, if he fell sleep during the day I took his temperature to confirm a fever. 100% accuracy.
Once I diagnosed pneumonia in my daughter (she was weirdly limp and almost faint-like). I forget why I suspected a lung issue but I hauled her to the pediatrician, very concerned. He listened to her lungs and said they sounded clear. I said this is more than a common cold or bug. I suggested an X-ray. He didn’t think it was necessary. I convinced him bec it was Friday at 5pm and a major storm was impending over next 48 hours and if she got worse I may not be able to drive her to the hospital due to road conditions. He was nice (2005) and said ok he understood that. X-ray came back pneumonia in lower left lobe. He said “you were right”. No worries, I wasn’t mad because I know you can’t always hear pneumonia through a stethoscope.
My point is, moms and their kids are anecdotes of 1. Every day. But it’s the pattern and close observation that makes the difference.
Not saying dads aren’t good caretakers as well, but my in my experience they are less able to pick up on subtleties.
I run into docs dismissing anecdotes all the time. Very frustrating. I utilize the medical complex very little now.
Dr. Kory, you are my special hero. But, I hate all tattoos, even yours. Other than that, I bought your book on chlorine dioxide. It reads like a mystery combined with science and humor. What a great read. As for 'insufficient evidence,' that's a bad joke that means 'you didn't want to find any, right?"
AI of course relies heavily on this excuse, as well as other bad behaviors, like forgetting previously stated variables, citing unreliable sources, arguing for corporate perspectives, repeating tech instructions that didn't work the first three times, outright lying, and even, (to much laughter) denying its name and then saying, 'Oh, you're right. I AM [fill in blank].' I have yet to consult AI without discovering these defects. It's easy to get fast data from AI, but accurate analysis, steered by possibly mischievous coders, is usually beyond its capability.
I decided to check in with a few AI models as to their take on Pattern Recognition vs. Scientific Method. My prompt? "Pattern recognition as an invaluable tool beyond the confines of the scientific method (for identifying causality)"
Alter AI (alter.systems) had the best, most comprehensive response. And with followup questions revealed how pattern recognition exposes institutional blind spots - - particularly in the medical industry. Give it a try!
Some highlights:
Pattern Recognition vs. the Scientific Method: A False Dichotomy: Every scientific hypothesis starts as a pattern someone noticed.
The Scientific Method's Structural Blind Spots:
- Publication bias
- p-hacking and HARKING
- Correlation ≠ causation, but also: absence of correlation ≠ absence of causation
The Replication Crisis as Proof
Where Each Tool Excels
The Real-World Consequence
How Pattern Recognition Exposes Institutional Blind Spots
- Paradigms filter perception before evidence even arrives
- Expertise is often a form of trained blindness
- Institutions reward pattern reinforcement, not pattern recognition
- The blind spot is usually where the money is
The blind spot is usually where the money is.
"Evidence-based" has become a rhetorical weapon, not a methodological standard (and shares several concrete failure modes).
In modern medicine, "insufficient evidence" rarely means a treatment doesn't work. It usually just means no pharma company could patent it to pay for the trial. Excellent breakdown of epistemic capture
People use anecdotal evidence to choose a dentist, a college, a house, and a job. But they can't use anecdotal evidence to choose a popular drug (or herb) for a cold or a headache? Seriously?
As seen in the clinical trials for BNT162b2, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are riddled with deception. The same is likely true for conventional pharmaceuticals, unless the trials are conducted by a completely neutral, independent body.
Vaccines are a special case, but even for standard drugs—where RCTs might involve only a few thousand participants—the results for the broader population are merely based on extrapolation.
At present, there is enough variation in human DNA (as well as proteins, peptides, amino acids, and enzymes) to distinguish between 7 trillion individuals.
Patients who did not participate in an RCT are prescribed treatments based on the effects and side effects extrapolated from those trials.
Even in physics—where phenomena can be modeled and projected using mathematical formulas—extrapolation requires great caution.
For extrapolation to be valid, the scope of its applicability must be understood beforehand from an entirely different perspective.
In medicine, where phenomena cannot be captured by mathematical formulas, attempting to extrapolate findings across 7 trillion people is fundamentally and highly precarious.
It seems that doctors are left to deal with the fallout—or, in some cases, they may simply choose to ignore it.
I suspect that observational clinical trials (OCTs)—which typically involve much larger numbers of people than RCTs—might actually be better suited for this kind of extrapolation.
As always, a pleasure and intellectual stimulant to read your musings. Hubba, hubba!
Readers deserve to know at least enough of the background and qualifications of any writer to decide where to place them on the scale of "that makes sense" to "what a load of BS," so...........I'm an exceptionally overeducated and deeply flawed old man: PhD from University of Florida in Experimental Psychology, postdoctoral fellowship in Behavioral Pharmacology at Harvard Medical School, employed at the National Institute on Drug Abuse where I was fired (told to resign) when someone made the observation that drugs do not evaporate from the drug cabinet--that someone must be taking them.
That being said, it distressed me even many years ago (early 1980s) how researchers bowed down to the gods of deductive thinking and the 95% statistical significance threshold. Whenever I see results confused as facts because p < 0.05 in some research paper I want to scream that this is only another way of saying that their results had a 1 in 20 chance of happening by chance (actually much higher since only papers that show statistically significant results tend to get published). The use of confidence intervals may be slightly more convincing than p values but they still share all the drawbacks of statistical analyses. Failure to test, or even mention, underlying assumptions, experimental designs picked to favor a certain result, cherry-picked or massaged data--the list goes on. In medical research, where ones paycheck increasingly depends upon Big Pharma support and getting the results to justify that support the pressure must be tremendous. It's no longer "publish or perish" but "publish what we want or perish." Big Pharma and it's lapdog certifying boards and agencies can then prescribe only the protocols they paid for.
I'm 75 years old and can count on one hand the number of times I have seen an M.D. in the last 25 years, precisely for the reasons discussed by Dr Kory in his essay above. The physicians of my youth, who observed their patients carefully, inductively came to certain conclusions about them and their symptoms and had the intellectual honesty to admit when they were wrong and to change course when they were, simply do not exist in any significant numbers any more. I can read a PDR, or increasingly now the DSM-V, as well as the next Big Pharma huckster who got where he is today primarily because of a good memory for what he has been told. I made the mistake of going to a "sports medicine" doctor (in the last 25 years) because I had a swollen bursa on my left elbow that seemed to be taking too long to heal. He glanced at it, told me not to worry, and asked if I had any other problems. I told him yes, that I was having trouble sleeping because my elbow hurt (chuckle). He became very agitated and said: "You're not sleeping! Are you depressed? Are you having suicidal thoughts?" Please. I made another mistake (also in the last 25 years) by deciding that I should get a "primary physician." After sitting through what seemed like a 600 item medical questionnaire, he told me my blood pressure was excellent, pulse rate was in the mid-50s and my blood work was all good but he was going to prescribe a blood pressure medication because I was at that age when people started to need them. Please, again.
Today my primary physician consists of reading the likes of Dr Kory, Dr McCullough, A Midwestern Doctor, Dr Marik and a bunch of others, plus a host of holistic authors. Keep up the good work Dr K--gotta go make up some more Aurmina water.
Oof. Harsh but true. Sad state of affairs; my favorite was, "they had the intellectual honesty to admit when they were wrong and to change course when they were " for some reason, I had no problem with adopting that stance and am always shocked to hear how few others are - getting it right was always more important to me than being right
Great quote from p. 216 of Earth’s Living Water— Modern water treatment define success as regulatory compliance. If Water meets contaminate limits, maintains disinfectant, residuals, and move safely through pipes, it is considered treated. Whether that water is mineral – complete, redox – balanced, or biologically supportive is rarely asked.”
This, to me is as the question, “Is this doctor credentialed— or educated?
Insufficient evidence, the accepted defense of self-serving psychopaths.
And those two words must be said with the nose in the air!
Think about vaccines. There are no randomly controlled trials with true placebos. Then they reject all the observational studies as well. It's madness.
The Amish people are about as close as we have to a placebo group. I believe their autism numbers speak volumes. (Far, far less in Amish community.)
Thank-you for sharing your experience and writing such a good essay!
Regarding the sidelined critics of accepted protocols- they are probably tolerated because even liars are concerned for their own health. They want the truth for themselves, but not for the masses they consume.
The “medicine” hucksters are parasites consuming their hosts. That’s probably why in times past many doctors were called “leeches”. It wasn’t just because they used actual leeches.
As always, the main problem is corruption- good vs. evil. Evil is more abundant, I think. Especially when Christianity is suppressed.
An important form of medical intelligence cannot be manufactured in a laboratory, purchased by pharmaceutical companies, or adequately captured in a randomized controlled trial. It develops through years of observing patients, recognizing patterns, listening deeply, making mistakes, and learning from the extraordinary complexity of human suffering. It is called clinical intelligence, and modern medicine risks sacrificing it on the altar of statistical authority.
One of my favorite doctors, Pierre Kory, MD, had the words INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE tattooed on his arm. The words insufficient evidence can become a convenient way to dismiss common sense, clinical experience, and even the suffering of the patient standing before us. Behind these two words, scientific uncertainty can become an excuse for intellectual arrogance.
The absence of conclusive proof is not proof that something is worthless, nor does it justify refusing to investigate what experienced physicians observe. When intelligence becomes more devoted to defending its rules than discovering the truth or relieving suffering, it loses its humanity. That is when intelligence becomes cruel—the cruelty of intelligence masquerading as scientific wisdom.
Pierre, I wrote a complete essay inspired by you.
The real problem amongst TPTB is insufficient humanity, compassion and soul.
It’s so frustrating that public figures claiming “insufficient evidence” were never challenged - - mostly because they would only grant interviews to sycophants or mainstream media - - to demonstrate why their evidence _against_ a given treatment was superior to the evidence presented in _support_ of one.
Btw… I haven’t checked recently… but as of a couple of months ago Chat GPT, Claude, and Grok still have to be cornered before they will look at the studies on c19early.org
It’s more than that. The media is “owned” and the owners have control over what is shared. Most of the ads are pharmaceuticals, and the owners are probably heavily invested. More alarming is how censored we ALL are. During Covid especially, but today also, people are restricted or erased
On Facebook and YouTube when saying something unapproved. They allow the basest pornography, but remove the politically incorrect. That was my biggest signal that the Covid shots were a scam. President Trump had a group of doctors he called “America’s Frontline Doctors” speak and stand on the front steps of the Capitol building, I believe, at the beginning of Covid. I somehow caught a glimpse of this somewhere and went looking for more on YouTube, only to find videos removed or missing or soon to be removed. I found out some of the doctors’ names and was able to find more information that warned me about the coming Covid vaccines. When people are silenced, you know that something bad is being covered up.
My ‘favorite’ is how pro-Covid Vax people scroll to the end of Fraiman et al’s analysis of Pfizer’s own data, and they yell “see it says the evidence is *preliminary*.”
My response is always… “look at the data that Pfizer submitted to the FDA for an EUA… they acknowledged their evidence was *preliminary* as well.”
Excellent. I noticed medical care getting less effective in the early 1990’s and now I know at least partly why. It seems like they’ve lost common sense. Pattern recognition is so important. Ask any intuitive, connected, nurturing mom. We know when our kids are sick or getting sick. Because their patterns change. I knew my kid was getting strep throat because 3 days prior to symptoms, their breath smelled differently. When my son was 5, if he fell sleep during the day I took his temperature to confirm a fever. 100% accuracy.
Once I diagnosed pneumonia in my daughter (she was weirdly limp and almost faint-like). I forget why I suspected a lung issue but I hauled her to the pediatrician, very concerned. He listened to her lungs and said they sounded clear. I said this is more than a common cold or bug. I suggested an X-ray. He didn’t think it was necessary. I convinced him bec it was Friday at 5pm and a major storm was impending over next 48 hours and if she got worse I may not be able to drive her to the hospital due to road conditions. He was nice (2005) and said ok he understood that. X-ray came back pneumonia in lower left lobe. He said “you were right”. No worries, I wasn’t mad because I know you can’t always hear pneumonia through a stethoscope.
My point is, moms and their kids are anecdotes of 1. Every day. But it’s the pattern and close observation that makes the difference.
Not saying dads aren’t good caretakers as well, but my in my experience they are less able to pick up on subtleties.
I run into docs dismissing anecdotes all the time. Very frustrating. I utilize the medical complex very little now.
Thank you Dr K for being so amazing!
Dr. Kory, Thank you! A brilliant exposé. The clip is very heartwarming. You wear your heart on your sleeve!
Looking forward to the next article.