About

Following a string of rather unpleasant content flagging and false DMCA filings on my YouTube channel, I’ve decided to set up a blog/vlog where I can better control my content and ensure that my message is available to people who are interested in what I have to say.

 

42 comments on “About

  1. Really enjoy your excellent videos and analyses but i’m feeling guilty. Great content for free doesn’t seem right. If you prefer to maintain your anonimity should I send MSF something on your behalf rather than to you?

  2. I caught one of your videos on youtube and found it valuable. I am trying to vet you as a reputable source of information, but I can’t seem to find out anything about you. Would you mind sending me a link to your bio?

    • I’m anonymous with good reason, Will. I appreciate your due diligence, but my personal life is too precious to risk for online credibility. You’ll have to take my word that I have advanced degrees in biology and genetics and 20 years of bench research experience.

  3. Hey. I don’t know if you read the comments here, but i would like to give a couple of suggestions on future videos:

    – Long term safety and effectiveness of stimulant use in ADHD patients (eg. amphetamines, methylphenidate).

    – The scientific status of human pheromone research, as in, are there pheromones or any substances secreted by either sex that would affect mate selection or influence perception of attractiveness, and if so, could wearing synthetic versions of them make a practical difference in ones dating prospects?

    The first one is a personal matter for me, as i have ADHD, and non-medication therapies alone were not effective. Because of this i take amphetamines daily, and i worry about the possibility of long-term neurological problems arising. There seems to be conflicting information on the topic, and as i’m not a scientist, i’m having difficulty parsing through the studies and deciding which ones are trustworthy.

    The second one is just a matter of curiosity. There seems to be a bunch of studies on androstadienone indicating it may have an effect on peoples mood and perception of attractiveness.

  4. I read a lot of interesting posts here. Probably you spend a lot of time writing, i know
    how to save you a lot of work, there is an online tool
    that creates unique, google friendly articles in seconds,
    just search in google – laranitas free content

  5. It was hard to find your blog in google search results.
    I found it on 17 position, you have to build some quality backlinks ,
    it will help you to increase traffic. I know
    how to help you, just type in google – k2 seo tips and tricks

  6. Hi c0nc0rdance. I’ve been following your YouTube channel since you appeared on the Magic Sandwich show some time ago and am now writing to you following your recent comments on Thunderf00t’s “Like a Girl” video.
    While I don’t have any particular opinion in either direction about most of the gender issues currently setting portions of the Internet aflame, I feel I must congratulate you that you’ve done your typically superlative job of being fair, balanced, and respectful in your approach to how data is represented and what conclusions can be fairly drawn from it. Thank you for continuing to be the scientist I’ve been striving to be for quite some years.

    Best regards, and please don’t stop doing what you’re doing,

    Tony

  7. C0nc0rdance, if it is your goal to show through the use of solid evidence and rational argument what is junk science, and what is real, how do you plan on dealing with semantics and terminology? Will this be a rational argument, an honest discussion or a debate, where the only object is to win at any cost? Do you agree that science as we know it is a religion and just like any religion it requires faith especially in the area of evolution an medicine? Is it possible that your use of the term “rational argument” answers all these question? Oh my god you said “to show” that means it’s not a two way conversation and by argument you mean statement. Duh!

    • Rawmilkmike. For future inquiry, I’d recommend you leave only one question if not a few significantly related questions, for the sake of ease in discussion. Your jumbled paragraph filled with numerous and almost entirely unrelated questions is hard to read, let alone respond to.

  8. C0nc0rdance, Why did you post those anti-raw milk videos 3 years ago?

    Were you simply looking for a controversial topic, hoping people would waste their time trying to arguing with you?

    Why would an intelligent person like yourself, pick a subject they obviously knew nothing about? Did you pick the anti-raw milk side simply because you thought it would generate the most hits? It’s like you poked a hornet’s nest and then ran or like a game of ding dong ditch.

    Are you doing the same with your other topics?

  9. c0nc0rdance, Is there a preferred form or method for ansking questions? No one seems to use the YT PM system anymore and I think I have a good question for a scientist like you.

  10. First, thank you for your excellent videos. Second, I was wondering if you have ever considered doing a video on the benefits of breast feeding. I can’t imagine it could be much more controversial than GMOs or circumcision, but I know a number of people (myself included) that would value a sober look at the evidence, particularly things like this: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sibbreast.htm

    • Many studies like this one, start with a controversial statement that turns out to be unrelated to the studies content:
      “Breast-feeding Benefits Appear to be Overstated” As you read on you find that they were only studying certain benefits and then finally they say: “I’m not saying breast-feeding is not beneficial, especially for boosting nutrition and immunity in newborns,” http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sibbreast.htm

      Here are a few interesting lines from a transcript of:
      “Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride (Part 2 of 6)”

      “In children who were not breastfed I see the symptoms of autism developing in the first
      year of life. So breastfeeding is crucial to protect these children.”

      “I always collect health history from the mother, the father, and preferably even grandparents of the child. What I find that
      we have a growing and a deepening epidemic of abnormalities in the gut flora which began since Second World War when antibiotics were discovered.”

      “So these women acquire slightly abnormal gut flora from their moms at birth then they were not breastfed so the abnormalities in the gut flora deepened then throughout their childhood they received many courses of antibiotics.”

      “then at the age of 15, 16 these ladies were put on a contraceptive pill. Contraceptive pills have a devastating effect on the gut flora.”

      “90% of all cells and all genetic material in a human body is our own gut flora. We are just a shell. We are only 10%. We are a habitat for this mass of microbes inside us. We ignore them at our peril.”

  11. Concordance,

    First of all, I’m a big fan of your videos. They’re some of the best on YouTube, in my opinion. They’re relevant, objective, and clearly presented. I can tell you are well-trained in science and critical thinking, but also have a knack for making compelling presentations. I remember watching one of your videos recently that talked about the definition of “concordance” and different types of studies (observational, clinical trials, etc). I’m an aerospace engineer, and I’m trying to educate one of my intelligent but misguided coworkers about the proper application of the scientific method, and why it works. I tried to find your video on “concordance” but for the life of me couldn’t. Could you please send me or post a link to it, if you know which one I’m talking about?

    Thanks much,
    Chris

  12. Hi, I really like your videos. You remind me of my English community college professor who stressed the importance of analyzing arguments, claims, evidence, and subsequently critical thinking. The methodology you use in your videos is (to the best of my knowledge) scientifically sound, and it is clear and concise in regards to how to communicate it- another great attribute about you and your videos; No homo. If at all possible I wanted to know two things: a.) what’s your educational background (i.e. your educational institution, completion, experience, etc.) and b.) do you have a twitter/facebook where more people can follow you? Your a fascinating individual with thoroughly thought out opinions and claims, and I want more people to know about your work. Thanks for your time.

  13. I really liked your video on gun control, very well reasoned. I just read an article in Skeptic Magazine by Michael Shermer called “The Sandy Hook Effect” which I think would be helpful for you when making part 2. Even if you don’t agree with his conclusions, the stats and graphs are really interesting. For your guns as self-defense video, especially the stat that says: “a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt, or a homicide, than it is for self-defense.” [in paragraph 6]
    Here is the article: http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-sandy-hook-effect/
    Hope it helps,
    Annie

  14. Hello,
    I’m impressed by your videos, especially the ones on humanity in general- since I’m an anthropology student. Anyways, I greatly enjoyed your “Genetic Bucket Chain” video and would like to ask you a few questions on the subject. I’m currently researching the inter-relatedness of most if not all humans. So, if you’re okay with it and all, could I ask you a few questions about it? Is there an address you’d like me to use or something? Just reply back whenever you can. Thanks, I appreciate it.

  15. Hi there, I’m a big fan of your series on youtube. I’ve seen a lot of talk recently about how hydrogen peroxide has no effect as a bacterial disinfectant or inhibits healing. I would love to see you do an evaluation of that.research as I’ve seen a lot of books but have had trouble finding peer reviewed medical articles on the subject (mostly because of a plethora of unrelated papers when I look and stuff from oprah.com)

  16. Hi !
    Thanks for the videos you sharing!

    I want to share a video to you 🙂 About quantum physics

    The Double Slit Experiment

  17. Hello,
    I just wanted to highlight something that I do not know if anyone has commented upon concerning your videos.

    I have a B.A. in Communications and am currently working towards becoming a High School Health Science teacher. I mention these two facts about myself because I believe that when it comes to imparting facts and evidence to individuals for the purpose of convincing them of the validity of an argument/idea/debate, one’s speech, tone, cadence, and choice of words are crucial to insuring (the closest one can come to) understanding and internalization.

    Having watched quite a few of your videos, I must applaud you on multiple levels. The tone of your voice and your delivery conveys an educated confidence, a passion for the subjects you discuss, as well as a compassion to and for both the educated and uneducated viewers of your videos. You correct misinformation with an obvious concern about the damage such misinformation causes and without being vindictive or sarcastic, like so many other youtubers who tackle similar subject matter. You appear to be a scientist who is both creative and compassionate, and I thank you for that, as it is inspiring.

    Sincerely,

    Michael Szilagyi

  18. Hi,

    First of all, thank you very much for the great video material that you make available. A number of them are that good that I do not want to risk them becoming unavailable so I downloaded them.

    One of those is the “Joy of Phylogeny” video. I did what you described, with a twist. I used it to look for a pattern in only the redundant parts of the DNA and yes, I found a pattern (not surprising of course).

    I’ve written a blog post about it, but since I am just a lay person when it comes to biology I am not sure that what I have written is completely correct. Could you give it a casual read and tell me if I goofed? The blog is at http://hamal.nl/dnared.

    Thanks in advance!
    Rob

  19. I was forwarded the video on water fluoridation and did not feel that this met the high quality standard in terms of reviewing or interpreting the evidence on water fluoridation. Your estimates for benefit are definitely not supported by any systematic review nor recent research findings. Increasing concerns about uncontrolled levels of ingestion have been extensively voiced in research papers as well. Levels of saliva fluoride from fluoridated water are insufficient to provide topical caries prevention – this has been documented since the 1990s. To simply show the meta analysis figure from the York systematic review without highlighting the serious concerns of the review authors about the poor quality of the research and changing contexts is not good analysis and presentation.

    It is interesting that other critics of bad science have classed water fluoridation as bad science (see the UK’s Dr Ben Goldacre -“Bad Science”).

    There has been a real scientific critique of fluoridation which raises significant concerns that you do not address – particularly as you primarily draw on dental journal sources. Given that UK editors of such journals will not publish studies that do not show water fluoridation in a positive light you have to consider that there may be publication bias at work here.

  20. c0nc0rdance
    Really respect what you are doing.
    Would you have anything typed up already that you can email to me about your talk on GMOs and Monsanto and a better way to deal with or another way to look at the problem.
    I want to be open minded but I am not fully convinced. I am also working on a skit and paper for a class and would like to present both sides of the situation but right now I can only see Big Agri-Giant winning.
    thanks,

  21. Hi Concordance,
    I watched a lot of your movies and for a classical scientist you seems to be incredible good.
    Have you ever questioned yourself: what happen if the foundation of modern science is biased…?
    What is happen if these grounds can be demolished with some 10 euro experiments?
    Here you have an example…..
    Imagine an electrolytic cell with molten NaCl inside…
    Does someone ask: what’s happened when the potential difference between electrodes in a electrolytic cell is lower then that necessary for electrodes reactions?
    According to actual definition of electric current (as a charge movement), in this case, the electrolytic cell should comport like a capacitor.
    The results of the experiments are completely contrary to actual theoretical prediction for solution and molten salts, as can be seen at:

    http://www.old.elkadot.com/chemistry/Electrolysis%20of%20Molten%20Sodium%20Chloride.htm

    I saw how nice you fight for Einstein general theory of relativity…. but I suppose you don/t know this can be infirmed again with some low cost experiments
    I suppose here is not space for a serious discussion but we can discuss on email.

  22. Concordance, can you please help me, about the common misconception of urine therapy, I beg you to publish a comprehensive video on what is the scientific knowledge on this matter, I am really grateful to you.

  23. I just watched your video on debunking some of the claims that NephilimFree made in a rebuttal to one of your videos. You mention several papers pertaining to similarities and differences between human and chimpanzee proteins and genetics. I was hoping that you might be able to point me to the most up-to-date paper on how much DNA we share with chimps. Old estimates were around 99%, but a paper in 2007 supposedly lowered it to 94%. Yet, the recently published data on the Bonobo genome says that they share 98.7% (again around 99%) with humans and 99.6% with chimps. Bonobos split from chimps, so there is no way they are closer to humans than chimps are to us.

    • This was a commissioned piece by CoMED. It is based on a series of case studies published in “Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues”.

      The rule on journals, usually, is the shorter the title, the more prestigious. Thus “Nature” “Science” “Cell” are all top-tier journals, while “Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health” not as much… when you add in “Part A: Current Issues” then it’s mostly just a place for people to publish “current issues” or case studies.

      The authors (father and son Geier) are professional vaccine litigants. They testify in court cases in vaccine trials for money. In many recent cases their testimony has been dismissed by a judge because they lack any credentials in the field of toxicology. Other of their papers have been retracted by reputable journals, and last year the son lost his medical license for violation of medical ethics.

      In short, this is not reputable information. It was a commissioned press release by an anti-vax group, features a shady anti-vax doctor in a bottom tier journal presenting a couple of case studies of questionable provenance.

  24. Yesterday I watched with interest your videos on critical thinking via the Top Documentary Films link. Naturally, I wondered about the author of that material, and came to this site seeking your name and background. But I haven’t been able to find it here either; am I being slow or are you incognito?

  25. On PZ Myers and feminism

    You mention PZ’s interest in promoting/protecting ‘diversity’; my thinking is that that gives real insight into where the thoughtful amongst us see where feminism tends to go astray: emphasizing differences. Early waves of feminism stressed similarities to gain rights- logical to most rational thinkers.

    Today’s feminism crosses over into sexism by emphasizing differences (in the face of overwhelming similarities) in the name of diversity, but that has clearly wandered into categor error.

  26. You seem like someone who carefully weighs evidence. If you have time, I was wondering what you thought of this explanation of a recent study. Is it accurate or faulty?

  27. People hate you and your content because you aren’t loyal. You have little to no bias towards any idea or notion. Even if you arrived at the same view-point as the flaggers, they’d still not like you because your opinion is flexible and swayable with evidence. You aren’t like the people who spam and try to censor your work – you don’t defend a view point, so to speak. You have no loyalty to them. That what makes your videos so great.

    Thank you for your effort and for sticking with this. You show those science-deniers!

  28. Thanks brother, your msg is clear and people who do care about the information you put out will find you and listen….thanks for all the shared knowledge you have provided throughout the years……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s