How much does a process server cost?

I ask because I got served this morning. There was a knock at the door, and a nice lady handed me a piece of paper from Offit/Kurman, a New York law office. It was titled “Demand to Take Down Defamatory & Copyright-Infringing Pages,” and was basically the same complaint I summarized back in June.

They want me to take down a post they call “Page One”, which I called How not to build a coalition, in which I reported that the Secular Policy Institute tried to recruit the Feminist Freethinkers to align with them by saying I’m starting to believe that the reason the secular movement doesn’t have more women is the women. Prove me wrong, which is something of an own goal. That post from 12 years ago they have now decided was defamatory.

They also want me to delete “Page Two”, a post that is only ten years old, titled Which do I dislike more, Encyclopedia Dramatica or Johnny Monsarrat? That one is both defamatory and copyright-infringing, because it links to a post about the unsavory and unethical behavior of one Jonathan Monsarrat, who is somehow involved with the Secular Policy Institute. I also include a formal, professionally photographed image taken directly from the publicly available, at that time, Secular Policy Institute, which showed Edwina Rogers in a group shot including Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and a few other people. They want that taken down. She may not like being seen together with Richard Dawkins, since a few years earlier Rogers had been suing Dawkins and the Secular Coalition of America.

I know. Ten years ago, there was a Secular Policy Institute and a Secular Coalition of America, along with many other godless organizations that have faded into the dim shadows of history, and they were suing each other. But of course, I was the problem that was splintering the whole movement.

Anyway, this new demand has added a “Page Three” that must be deleted — it’s the post from last month in which I mentioned “Page One” and “Page Two”! I think that means that next month they’ll have to send me revised demands that will include a “Page Four”, which will be this post you are reading right now. I think we’re trapped in a time loop.

They have an additional complaint about “Page Three”.

By demanding that “Someone needs to mention Barbra Streisand to these people,” your newest article could be interpreted as a call to encourage additional defamation against Ms. Rogers, her organization and her colleagues.

Wheee! I guess mentioning Barbra Streisand is now stochastic terrorism, and I am an agent of chaos.

They conclude by demanding the takedown of “Page One,” “Page Two,” and “Page Three” by August 12 2026, and have also added a confidentiality clause.

3. Confidentiality: Agree that the contents and existence of the parties’ settlement are confidential, including the settlement communications culminating in the settlement. Neither the contents nor existence of the settlement, nor communications leading to the settlement, may form the basis of future articles, blogs, or posts on Freethoughtblogs.com or anywhere else.

That’s the “Shut up and don’t expose our idiocy anymore” clause. Sorry, I don’t play that game.

>huuuaaaallllp<

This grubby-handed gentleman left a jar of raw milk outside, in 90°F heat, for two days, until the solids started to separate, chunks formed, and I see some discoloration appearing, although that could just be from the filthy state of his glassware. He says this is an “experiment.”

I’m not showing you the video, because next…he takes a big swig of the rotten, curdled milk, and I nearly lost it. Would you drink any milk, let alone raw milk, that had been left to fester in the sun for a few days? I wouldn’t make you watch that.

But if you insist, here’s a link to instagram. Mmmm. Warm lumps of slimy coagulated milk.

Then he insists that it was probably better for him than when it was fresh, because the bacteria have had time to culture and develop more complexity. He reassures us that it is totally safe.

The raw milk fanatics are totally insane.

Hey atheists — I have a question. Is Lily Jay fake?

If you’ve hung out with the atheist communities on YouTube or Instagram (and if you haven’t, congratulations!) you’ve probably encountered Lily Jay. She’s a chirpy blonde Australian woman, and convert to Islam, who makes short videos in which she tries to poke holes in atheist ideas. Her content is incredibly stupid, but she does have 3 million followers. Here’s an example of the bad, but fortunately brief, arguments she makes.

You want more evidence of stupidity? Here’s another example. There’s so much more on her YouTube channel.

She also rejects evolution for the dumbest reasons.

We evolutionists say we all evolved from one-celled organisms, but we don’t have any 2-cell or 3-cell organisms. Checkmate, atheists!

She’s all over social media. She doesn’t just pester atheists with her nonsense, but there are also lots of videos that start Hey Christians, Hey Hindus, Hey Buddhists, Hey feminists, Hey vegetarians, etc., etc., etc. all with the same sort of stupid gotcha claims. She is incredibly obnoxious. I’ve long been in the habit of instantly scrolling away when that face and the word Hey… appears.

She not only has a huge personal following, but she claims to have built a charitable organization, the Lily Jay Foundation, which has been opening up orphanages and mosques all over Africa. Or has it?

The foundation she recently established, the Lily Jay Foundation, also has a massive following.

Its logo often adorns banners that appear in her videos, usually fixed behind her.

In one of those videos, posted in February, viewers are introduced to “our newest children in Africa”.

They wear white T-shirts, adorned with the same Lily Jay Foundation logo and the Ugandan flag.

“We washed them, gave them new clothes, everything a child needs to grow up in a positive environment,” the voiceover says, over images of happy children.

Except…these propaganda videos all seem to be made with AI.

The woman who appears at the start of the video, enthusiastically announcing the establishment of the orphanage, is not the real Lily Jay.

This blonde woman is a fabrication, made with artificial intelligence. So too are the children with lollipops, and the foundation’s banner behind her.

Further, no one seems to be able to find these charitable constructs via independent sources.

The Ugandan Registration Services Bureau initially confirmed to ABC NEWS Verify that there was no orphanage registered under the Lily Jay Foundation name, or “Ada Nur”, the name Lily Jay has given to the orphanage on her website.

It turns out the foundation isn’t even registered as a charity — it’s a logistics firm.

The Lily Jay Foundation registered its first ABN in 2025, but at the bottom of the foundation’s website is the admission that it is not an actual charity.

“Lily Jay Foundation is a next-generation social enterprise and high-speed humanitarian logistics firm executing rapid aid deployment in global crisis zones,” it read.

“To maintain absolute speed and independence, we operate as a private commercial structure funded by voluntary project sponsorships, which fuel our high-speed supply chain and are currently not tax-deductible.”

If you’re curious about what anyone would have to gain by setting up a fake charity, or why they would do it, the answer is simple.

Lily Jay — real name Lily Jay Hinson — does not appear to currently reside in Australia and details about the 31-year-old’s life are difficult to pinpoint.

Her social media account shows a life of jet-setting luxury, business class travel and expensive-looking jewellery.

Clues online indicate she is originally from the Sunshine Coast and had attempted a career in music and dance before pivoting to become an Islam influencer.

I will be curious to see if her popularity starts to drop, or if YouTube or Instagram kill her lying, phony channels. But I’m not holding my breath — she says what believers want to hear, so it’ll probably continue.

Oops. Her instagram account has already been deleted.

We already knew Bryan Johnson was going to die someday

Remember Bryan Johnson? Here’s a reminder of his silly obsession.

Johnson famously claims to spend millions on his health each year, which goes towards keeping a personal army of doctors on hand who constantly monitor his biomarkers, and help carry out more unorthodox health interventions like swapping his blood out with his younger son’s and monitoring his nighttime boners (though he’s seemed to pare things back as of late).

Unfortunately, poor little Bryan is sick.

Bryan Johnson, in his quest for eternal youth, has been dealt a mortal blow.

Last week, the longevity-obsessed tech investor revealed that he had been diagnosed with an incurable autoimmune disease in which his “stomach is eating itself.”

He’s got autoimmune gastritis. It’s not a mortal illness, but it is a serious and uncomfortable chronic disease, nothing to be made light of. Pity him, but don’t plan the funeral just yet.

Besides, he’s going to turn this into a profit-making drama.

But, true to his mission, Johnson believes he can biohack his way out of this gut-punch, too.

“I’m going to try and solve it,” he wrote on X. “Will share all.”

The man is rich, he already spends millions of dollars on his health every year, and gastritis is a manageable illness. I’m pretty sure he’s going to live through this, it’s just become a significantly more uncomfortable process.

But someday, he will die.

The clowns rise to the top

Imagine that Donald Trump offered me a prestigious and profitable position in his administration (that’s not going to happen). I’m on the edge of retirement, and would love to have a nice comfortable position for my twilight years, so maybe you think I’d be tempted. I would not. I am not going to trash my own integrity to get some advantage. That would be the last thing I’d ever consider, and would feel a deep shame if I were to accept it, because everything Trump touches turns to crap.

In other words, I’m not Avi Loeb.

A polarizing Harvard astronomer known for splashy theories about alien visits has been tapped by the Trump administration to lead a team of outside scientists to study the national security risks posed by UFOs.

Avi Loeb, a cosmologist who studied black holes and served as head of Harvard’s astronomy department until 2020, was recently appointed to helm a new scientific advisory council tasked with investigating the origins of mysterious orbs and other objects reported by military personnel in recent years.

Loeb has made a career of pushing patently nonsensical bullshit. That’s not just my opinion, the scientific community in general thinks he’s a con artist.

His theories have won praise in UFO circles but often put him in conflict with academic peers. Other astronomers accuse him of making exotic claims with little evidence. Some chafe at his habit of skipping the peer review process and bringing claims directly to the public.

Steve Desch, an Arizona State University astrophysicist who has challenged some of Loeb’s theories, said Loeb uses flawed methods to reach wild conclusions about alien life — all while shunning a more established branch of science searching for life beyond Earth.

Loeb’s role on the administration’s new panel casts doubt on the entire endeavor, Desch said.

“I don’t know what’s going to come of this, but we’re not going to get any closer to answering these questions with him in charge,” Desch said.

Loeb has been artificially propped up by the grifter administration. Let’s hope he comes crashing down hard in a few years, and learns regret.

Confirming the terrible quality of this panel, Michael Shermer has also been appointed to it.

Not my VBS

I never formally attended Vacation Bible School, but my house was across the street from the Lutheran church, so sometimes I was tempted. There were kids playing outside! They were playing a beanbag game! So I wandered over a few times, and I was encouraged by the sunday school to do so. Forgive me, for I sinned.

It was mostly harmless, I think — the theme was just to have fun while under the umbrella of the church. That’s all. I guess the church has gotten more aggressive nowadays.

In a bizarre, disturbing scene that’s gone viral on TikTok, a church appeared to stage a fake execution of a man—involving realistic-looking guns and military uniforms—during Vacation Bible School. As the man is being murdered, the children are cheering in unison, “Take him out! Blow him up!” The military men then take the body outside (and out of view), where it’s suggested by the pastor they’re going to “blow him up.”

It’s disturbing that children were not only watching this scene, they were encouraged to cheer on the players machine-gunning the victim. Is this where a faith centered on the public execution of a disruptor of the status quo leads us?

The preacher at that church rationalizes the scene by saying that murdered man represented sin or satan, so it was OK to kill them. I’m sure Jesus would agree that children should be taught to kill sinners. They deserve death, after all.

I wonder if this church teaches that LGBTQ+ people are sinners?

I don’t understand American Christians

Barna has put out the results from a survey of American beliefs, and it bewilders me.

• A majority of U.S. adults adopted a biblical answer on only 1 of 7 questions about humanity and only
1 of 7 questions about the supernatural.
• Only 57% of adults believe humans are God’s creation, made in His image, fallen, and in need of
redemption—despite 70% identifying as Christian.
• Just 30% of adults hold the biblical view that people are born into sin and can only be saved by Jesus
Christ. Among Catholics, that figure drops to 24%.
• Only 1 in 4 adults (27%) believes human life is sacred. An equal share says human life has no intrinsic
value.
• A majority of Americans (52%) consider abortion morally acceptable—and only 1 in 3 adults (33%)
describes themselves as passionately pro-life.
• Only half of U.S. adults (50%) believe God is the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe
who rules it today—down from a clear majority at the start of the millennium.
• One in four adults strongly agrees that Jesus Christ sinned while on Earth. Among Notional Christians,
roughly half of all churchgoers, more strongly agreed He sinned than strongly disagreed.
• By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans are more likely to firmly believe the Holy Spirit is merely a
symbol than to strongly affirm the Holy Spirit as a living entity.
• Twice as many adults strongly agree that animals, plants, wind, and water have unique spirits (35%) as
strongly disagree (16%).
• Nine out of 10 American adults hold Syncretism (not Biblical Theism) as their dominant worldview

• A majority of U.S. adults adopted a biblical answer on only 1 of 7 questions about humanity and only
1 of 7 questions about the supernatural.

What is a “biblical answer”? I don’t think there is such a thing — the Bible is a tremendous hodge-podge of archaic, conflicting, and fuzzy ideas. This is an assumption that there is a clear “biblical” position on everything, so I’m unsurprised that there is an absence of a coherent response. The survey returned results that don’t match Barna’s presupposition of what Americans should believe.

• Only 57% of adults believe humans are God’s creation, made in His image, fallen, and in need of
redemption—despite 70% identifying as Christian.

57% is still too damn high. I’m curious as to what the 43% believe.

• Just 30% of adults hold the biblical view that people are born into sin and can only be saved by Jesus
Christ. Among Catholics, that figure drops to 24%.

That’s just a fundamentally horrible belief. What is sin? What is it that a newborn is a sinner? I’m happy to see that belief is in decline.

• Only 1 in 4 adults (27%) believes human life is sacred. An equal share says human life has no intrinsic
value.

I believe that human life is valuable and should be protected, but I don’t believe in the “sacred,” so I guess I’m in the majority. A lot of people are becoming cynical if they think life has no intrinsic value.

• A majority of Americans (52%) consider abortion morally acceptable—and only 1 in 3 adults (33%)
describes themselves as passionately pro-life.

The pro-life movement has always been nothing but an ideological game that was ginned up in the 1970s. The Bible doesn’t say much of anything about abortion, and basically takes it for granted that it happens. Is this one of the things they score as a “non-biblical answer”?

• Only half of U.S. adults (50%) believe God is the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe
who rules it today—down from a clear majority at the start of the millennium.

Good. Let’s see that number continue it’s decline. The concept of an ominipotent supernatural agent is nonsensical.

• One in four adults strongly agrees that Jesus Christ sinned while on Earth. Among Notional Christians,
roughly half of all churchgoers, more strongly agreed He sinned than strongly disagreed.

I’ve never even thought about this idea! Why would anyone care about the sin-status of a rabble-rousing Jewish preacher who lived 2000 years ago? Apparently it’s a serious theological question, which is an indictment of theology.

• By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans are more likely to firmly believe the Holy Spirit is merely a
symbol than to strongly affirm the Holy Spirit as a living entity.

Don’t you suspect that most people are confused about this whole business of a “holy ghost”? I know I was only exposed to the concept of the trinity as a grade school child, and found it absurd, so I’m sure theology has a more “sophisticated” muddle of excuses, but I suspect most Americans have the equivalent of my childish explanation.

To be a good Christian, must one believe in a nebulous space ghost?

• Twice as many adults strongly agree that animals, plants, wind, and water have unique spirits (35%) as
strongly disagree (16%).

“Spirits.” Stop there. When your survey is treating spirits as discrete entities that need to be evaluated, you’re lost.

• Nine out of 10 American adults hold Syncretism (not Biblical Theism) as their dominant worldview

OK, good. Ken Ham is thus rebuked.

I read the whole paper, and I’m mainly confused about why we should consider it significant that American religious belief is complicated and messy and does not conform to one particular view. There are tens of thousands of protestant denominations! I guess it’s nice that Barna is highlighting how incoherent religious belief is.

They’re against science and free speech

No one will be surprised to learn that RFK jr is trying to bias the scientific literature. He’s upset that the journal Toxicology Reports had killed an article that supported his weird belief that childhood vaccines are causing Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, so he pressured them to restore it.

Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary, is demanding answers from a medical journal that recently removed a paper suggesting a link between vaccines and infant death, saying their decision was “of great interest to me”.

Public health advocates immediately criticized the move, and said Kennedy appeared to be trying to intimidate and influence the journal’s editorial process. The journal Toxicology Reports had removed the paper this spring after editors determined it was so seriously flawed it could harm patients and pose a risk to public health.

This is patent meddling in the publication of scientific ideas. David Gorski commented on it.

Dr David Gorski, a surgical oncologist who has written extensively about the antivaccine movement, pointed out in a post that Kennedy has portrayed himself as pro-free speech, but that he was “apparently using the power of his position” to put pressure on an editorial decision by a private publisher.

“To antivaxxers, it’s free speech for me, but not for thee,” Gorski wrote on X.

I’m interested in that bit about how the paper was “seriously flawed”. The first clue is that the paper is yet another example of VAERS cherry-picking, a common tactic by vaccine deniers to scavenge through reports of vaccine effects to find isolated examples that they they then assemble into fanciful fairy tales of statistical significance, and that’s what this paper is.

The paper raised concern among scientists soon after it was published in 2021 by Neil Z Miller. It used reports made in the federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to find what Miller said were “unusual patterns and safety signals highly suggestive of a causal relationship” between vaccination and Sids. VAERS is a vaccine safety monitoring program where anyone can submit a report about any suspected adverse health event that happens after a vaccination.

The second clue is that the author is Neil Z Miller. They can stop right there — Miller has an entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. He’s not a scientist, not a doctor, and has no qualifications whatsoever, and all he does is comb through diverse data to assemble “evidence” supporting his a priori conclusion that vaccines are bad, mmmK?

Neil Z. Miller is a “medical research journalist”, “health pioneer”, “independent researcher” (yes, that means exactly what you think it means) and Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, an anti-vaccine organization listed here (and Miller has a long history in various altmed and antivaxx organizations). Gary S. Goldman is an “independent computer scientist” affiliated with WAVE – World Association for Vaccine Education, another anti-vaxx organization, and President and Founder of Medical Veritas, a rabidly anti-vaccine “journal” (listed here) that is into HIV/AIDS denialism as well, having published dubious “reanalyses” of autopsy results of victims of AIDS. Neither Miller nor Goldman have any qualifications that would lead one to think that they have any special expertise in epidemiology, vaccines, or science. But they have google and are not afraid to use it.

Together they have actually managed to publish a paper or two in obscure journals, where they completely misunderstand data in favor of their cherished hypotheses. In “Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?” they “found” that nations requiring the most vaccines tend to have the worst infant mortality rates, and their cherry-picking of data and speculation needed to reach that conclusion are rather painful – quite simply yet another poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly analyzed study that is poorly done exactly because it needs to be in order to show what the authors want it to show, namely that vaccines cause autism, a hypothesis so thoroughly falsified as any in the history of science. The study was of course praised in the venues you’d suspect, and where the assessment of the methodology used in the study is determined by whether it supports the conclusions the praiser wants it to show. Indeed, it was even praised at NaturalNews in a long post written by … Miller himself.

That paper should not have been accepted in the first place, and now we have RFK jr stepping in to push for its publication. And what qualifications does RFK jr have to assess scientific papers? Also none whatsoever.