Matt Lambeau, Tree of Self-Evident Truth |546|

[Alex]

Matt Lambeau, Tree of Self-Evident Truth |546|
by Alex Tsakiris | Mar 29 | Spirituality
Share
Tweet

Matt Lambeau is an author who claims to reveal self-evident truths about freedom, love and deception.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Uh no — Science and spirituality has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt ( except to the believers ) that the "conscious soul" survives the death of the body. If anything, if logic and reason can be thought of as essential tools in the evaluation of science, then the best that can be surmised is that there might be a loophole that allows for some sort of afterworld copy, but that's not the same as "survival".

By now this should have become one of those not so self-evident truths. Instead, it's looking to me like because it doesn't fit into people's belief systems, people offhandedly dismiss it. Then they reinforce their faulty philosophical paradigms with whatever notions make them happy, and defend it by calling anyone who doesn't agree with them low-vibration, negative energy, spiritual vampires, on the same level as Hitler — That drives me totally crazy.

That being said, intuitively, Lambeau still recognizes that there is an innate desire for personal freedom in most people. I say "most people" because I'm not so sure that everyone wants freedom. It seems like there are always leaders and there are always followers. Some people seem to like having their lives controlled because it allows them to abdicate any responsibility for their actions.

 

[Starmonkey]

Good conversation. Liked the flow.
I think the self-evident truth thing isn't so clear, as social media shows, but if someone has an experience, it can develop.
But you can't TELL others and even showing has its limitations. They have to realize it for themselves.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Good conversation. Liked the flow.
I think the self-evident truth thing isn't so clear, as social media shows, but if someone has an experience, it can develop.
But you can't TELL others and even showing has its limitations. They have to realize it for themselves.

Sure — at least to an extent. Before one can understand what a "self-evident truth" is, they need a working understanding of what is meant by 'truth". Otherwise people get caught in that other trap that drives me crazy, which is using the phrase "my truth", as if whatever nonsense they believe is some sort of truth simply because they happen to think it's that way.

 

[Starmonkey]

Sure — at least to an extent. Before one can understand what a "self-evident truth" is, they need a working understanding of what is meant by 'truth". Otherwise people get caught in that other trap that drives me crazy, which is using the phrase "my truth", as if whatever nonsense they believe is some sort of truth simply because they happen to think it's that way.

Which is why, given the parameters and conditions of the interactions here, this conversation won't go much of anywhere.
This same topic created all sorts of disturbance among people at Stolen History. Was near "the end".

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Which is why, given the parameters and conditions of the interactions here, this conversation won't go much of anywhere.
This same topic created all sorts of disturbance among people at Stolen History. Was near "the end".

I was never on Stolen History, but I'm not surprised that the subject caused a "disturbance". Something I found interesting about this interview is that Lambeau comes across as confidently as I do, but seems to have a totally different perspective that doesn't appear to be compatible with mine, which forced me to consider the possibility that we're both wrong, and some other being whose perspective is closer to being accurate, could conceivably exist who would think we're a couple of self-deluded cave-men attempting to tackle something far far bigger than we can comprehend.

 

[David Bailey]

Uh no — Science and spirituality has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt ( except to the believers ) that the "conscious soul" survives the death of the body. If anything, if logic and reason can be thought of as essential tools in the evaluation of science, then the best that can be surmised is that there might be a loophole that allows for some sort of afterworld copy, but that's not the same as "survival".

The problem is that you can only make that confident statement if you assume Materialism.

To me, one of the strongest hints that materialism is ultimately false, is the so called Hard Problem, defined by the philosopher David Chalmers. This observes that explaining how a chunk of matter - e.g. the human brain - can have experiences (pain, comfort, hunger, satisfaction.....) - is a remarkably hard problem. Indeed it is hard to even imagine how such a thing might work. On the one hand you have the laws of physics presumably that run the brain (that itself is only an assumption, because QM calculations get lost in complexity long before you reach the scale of a single cell). On the other hand you have the conscious experience. How do you get a connection? Whatever explanation you try, simply generates a cascade of equally hard problems. For example if you decide that a particular psychedelic binds to a certain brain receptor, it is tempting to say that is how the drug produces the experience. However, on second thoughts, all that does is explain the behaviour of the psychedelic in terms of the behaviour that the receptor triggers off. That is like explaining how a light bulb works by looking at the switch on the wall!

Another way to doubt materialism is to read the masses of NDE evidence - particularly the cases where people obtain knowledge that they cannot logically have obtained.

I began to doubt materialism a long time ago. I suppose the process began in my 40's. By now I think it is just another scientific approximation - rather like Newton's laws of motion. Most people know that Newton's laws have been superceded by some form of relativity, but for many tasks they use his laws as if they represent absolute truth.

David

 

[J Randall Murphy]

The problem is that you can only make that confident statement if you assume Materialism.

To me, one of the strongest hints that materialism is ultimately false, is the so called Hard Problem, defined by the philosopher David Chalmers. This observes that explaining how a chunk of matter - e.g. the human brain - can have experiences (pain, comfort, hunger, satisfaction.....) - is a remarkably hard problem. Indeed it is hard to even imagine how such a thing might work. On the one hand you have the laws of physics presumably that run the brain (that itself is only an assumption, because QM calculations get lost in complexity long before you reach the scale of a single cell). On the other hand you have the conscious experience. How do you get a connection? Whatever explanation you try, simply generates a cascade of equally hard problems. For example if you decide that a particular psychedelic binds to a certain brain receptor, it is tempting to say that is how the drug produces the experience. However, on second thoughts, all that does is explain the behaviour of the psychedelic in terms of the behaviour that the receptor triggers off. That is like explaining how a light bulb works by looking at the switch on the wall!

Another way to doubt materialism is to read the masses of NDE evidence - particularly the cases where people obtain knowledge that they cannot logically have obtained.

I began to doubt materialism a long time ago. I suppose the process began in my 40's. By now I think it is just another scientific approximation - rather like Newton's laws of motion. Most people know that Newton's laws have been superceded by some form of relativity, but for many tasks they use his laws as if they represent absolute truth.

David

I get the HPC. We had a long discussion about it over at The Paracast. The HPC is an intellectual tool for framing the "problem of consciousness". It doesn't explain anything, but if you get it, you can look at the problem in ways you might not have considered before. Ultimately, almost anything can be framed in a similar sort of manner in order to evoke the same sort of existential problem. Chalmers is a favorite BTW.

Now having said that, we can turn to the question of materialism, for which there are almost as many flavors as there are philosophers, which means that first, we need to define what we mean in this specific conversation by the word "materialism". It looks to me like what you're calling materialism is what I'd call classical materialism — the notion that everything is made of some sort of material ( stuff ).

As notions of materialism evolved, they started to echo physics, which takes into account not only what we commonly think of as materials, but whatever those materials are made of on a fundamental level. This is sometimes referred to as physicalism. Sometimes philosophers conflate the two, but I don't. I'd say that I'm a particular flavor of physicalism that echoes, but isn't identical to, the position of phenomenologist Merleau Ponty.

If I were to try to pin it down in a single sentence, I would say that in parallel with modern physics, I assume that all things derive from the fundamental forces ( or phenomena or whatever your prefered word is ) — of nature. Therefore consciousness itself is either a fundamental phenomena of nature, or it at least supervenes on them ( or it ) in some sort of emergent manner.

Returning now to the view that this way of framing the problem must be false, we can see that such is not necessarily the case, and the only alternative is some sort of subjective idealism, which apart from feeling wrong on an intuitional level, also has some serious logical inconsistencies that can only be resolved by making things far more complicated than they need to be.

 

[David Bailey]

I get the HPC. We had a long discussion about it over at The Paracast. The HPC is ultimately only an intellectual tool for framing the "problem of consciousness". It doesn't explain anything, but if you get it, you can look at the problem in ways you might not have considered before. Ultimately, almost anything can be framed in a similar sort of manner in order to evoke the same sort of existential problem. Chalmers is a favorite BTW.

Well there are other things that can be framed in a similar way to the HPC, but the ones I can think of from the past turned out to require an enlargement of physics in surprising ways. For example, when particles were still thought to be particles (i.e. pre-QM) some people must have wondered how any chemicals could have definite properties, because every molecule of water (say) would have particles with slightly different energies forming a continuum. I am sure anyone who thought about that puzzle back then must have decided it was insoluble. Obviously we now know that the particles are better thought of as waves, and for a molecule to be stable, those waves have to form a standing wave. This is analogous to an organ pipe. The speed of the air through the pipe forms a continuum, but the notes it emits are at discrete frequencies.

What I am saying, is that problems like the HPC are really valuable. Fudging over it doesn't achieve much.

I'm damn sure the HPC is telling us something really important, and it won't be solved by re-asserting materialism. I like the analogy between the brain and and a TV set - or a maybe a better analogy might be with a Mars rover. The brain somehow tunes into consciousness, rather than creating it.

David

 

[Robbedigital]

To me, one of the strongest hints that materialism is ultimately false, is the so called Hard Problem, defined by the philosopher David Chalmers. This observes that explaining how a chunk of matter - e.g. the human brain - can have experiences (pain, comfort, hunger, satisfaction.....) - is a remarkably hard problem.

That doesn’t seem like a hard problem at all.
(Devils Advocate)
Anything according to materialism, anything that exists is just as “alive” as we humans are, and qualitatively no different. Any planet like Earth or Mars who’s “experiencing” a buildup of a storm or volcano or quake, must feel pressure to the same extent that we humans feel(being mini versions of just complicated eco systems).
When an abnormal storm etches a pathway into the earth and makes a river, doesn’t the water “habitually” follow the path of the river? And isn’t the water constantly “trying”(feelings) to find its lowest point at the sides of the river but won’t find it until it reaches the end of the river?(long suffering)

I bet if you viewed the life of planet Earth high speed like 100 yrs = 1 billion yrs, the seasons would appear to beat like a human heart.

This all is only devils advocate, because I’m of the assumption that our higher selves aren’t/won’t be measured physically.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Well there are other things that can be framed in a similar way to the HPC, but the ones I can think of from the past turned out to require an enlargement of physics in surprising ways. For example, when particles were still thought to be particles (i.e. pre-QM) some people must have wondered how any chemicals could have definite properties, because every molecule of water (say) would have particles with slightly different energies forming a continuum. I am sure anyone who thought about that puzzle back then must have decided it was insoluble. Obviously we now know that the particles are better thought of as waves, and for a molecule to be stable, those waves have to form a standing wave. This is analogous to an organ pipe. The speed of the air through the pipe forms a continuum, but the notes it emits are at discrete frequencies.

What I am saying, is that problems like the HPC are really valuable. Fudging over it doesn't achieve much.

I'm damn sure the HPC is telling us something really important, and it won't be solved by re-asserting materialism. I like the analogy between the brain and and a TV set - or a maybe a better analogy might be with a Mars rover. The brain somehow tunes into consciousness, rather than creating it.

David

Certainly no "fudging over" the HPC on my part. It became an integral part of the discussion over on The Paracast, which went on for years ( literally ). However, in the end, it still gets us no closer to solving the problem. If I weren't still rooted in a physicalist approach, I'd be signing on with the New Mysterians. Whether or not the brain plays a causal or interpretive role in consciousness is a whole other question. Why can't it be both?

The best evidence that the brain plays a causal role is neuroscience. If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest starting with basic sensory processing, memory, and the thalamocortical loop. After that, it seems reasonable to suggest that consciousness isn't strictly epiphenomenal. After all, if it's operating in a feedback loop, it must be a constant process of stimulus, detection & response.

So although there's no reasonable evidence to suggest that consciousness involves "tuning in" to a remotely generated broadcast, there is evidence we may be tuning into our own. Mind you, there's no way to know that for sure either — back to the brain in a vat problem. But even if we assume that we are "tuned in" to some remote broadcast instead of creating our own, that still doesn't explain the phenomenon of consciousness.

The significance of this state of affairs is that the most likely situation boils down to us humans being fully integrated autonomous beings, and therefore any loss of components results in the loss of part of us as persons. Those who think of themselves only as spiritual ( for lack of a better term ) discount this holistic approach by making the body inconsequential. However, that approach is nothing short of wilful ignorance.

True immortality requires that none of what defines us as persons is destroyed – ever. It's not sufficient to dismiss any part of our being simply because it's inconvenient for our beliefs. What defines us as humans exists on all levels from the materials that make up our bodies, to the processes and phenomena associated with it — including but not limited to consciousness.

 

[Bhakti]

I spent a very long time exploring Jung-Pauli dual aspect monism, and came away convinced.

 

[David Bailey]

Certainly no "fudging over" the HPC on my part. It became an integral part of the discussion over on The Paracast, which went on for years ( literally ). However, in the end, it still gets us no closer to solving the problem. If I weren't still rooted in a physicalist approach, I'd be signing on with the New Mysterians. Whether or not the brain plays a causal or interpretive role in consciousness is a whole other question. Why can't it be both?

The best evidence that the brain plays a causal role is neuroscience. If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest starting with basic sensory processing, memory, and the thalamocortical loop. After that, it seems reasonable to suggest that consciousness isn't strictly epiphenomenal. After all, if it's operating in a feedback loop, it must be a constant process of stimulus, detection & response.

So although there's no reasonable evidence to suggest that consciousness involves "tuning in" to a remotely generated broadcast, there is evidence we may be tuning into our own. Mind you, there's no way to know that for sure either — back to the brain in a vat problem. But even if we assume that we are "tuned in" to some remote broadcast instead of creating our own, that still doesn't explain the phenomenon of consciousness.

The significance of this state of affairs is that the most likely situation boils down to us humans being fully integrated autonomous beings, and therefore any loss of components results in the loss of part of us as persons. Those who think of themselves only as spiritual ( for lack of a better term ) discount this holistic approach by making the body inconsequential. However, that approach is nothing short of wilful ignorance.

True immortality requires that none of what defines us as persons is destroyed – ever. It's not sufficient to dismiss any part of our being simply because it's inconvenient for our beliefs. What defines us as humans exists on all levels from the materials that make up our bodies, to the processes and phenomena associated with it — including but not limited to consciousness.

The trouble is, you don't really acknowledge all the relevant evidence on the other side of this question.

1) As I have already pointed out, there is a mass of evidence relating to NDE's, including NDE's that contain information that the person themselves did not know prior to the NDE.

2) There is the remarkable evidence of Prof Ian Stevenson, which shows that (at least sometimes) people die and re-incarnate in another body! There is also at least some evidence that people can remember previous lives while under hypnosis. This was my reason for using the expression, "Tuning in".

3) Every bit of more mundane psychic evidence, such as the Ganzfeld ESP experiments, shows evidence that consciousness doesn't seem to play by the rules of physicalism.

4) You should also look at the work of Julie Beischel (she has at least one podcast here). She developed a statistical method to test mediums under multiple blind conditions, and she has a list of mediums that pass her tests. This is hard evidence that some mediums at least genuinely contact the dead.

You seem to be hedging your bets a bit - suggesting that we are part physical, part something else. Then you comment that "True immortality requires that none of what defines us as persons is destroyed – ever" don't think anyone is denying that we shed something as we die!

I don't see any reason to use your definition of "True immortality".

David

 

[Jack Ward]

I'm so busy, but I want to write a long post on this one.
Really cool stuff but you guys are SOOOOOOO American it drives me nuts. LOL

 

[Robbedigital]

I'm so busy, but I want to write a long post on this one.
Really cool stuff but you guys are SOOOOOOO American it drives me nuts. LOL

You guys still allowed to say “nuts” on the internet?

 

[Robbedigital]

So although there's no reasonable evidence to suggest that consciousness involves "tuning in" to a remotely generated broadcast, there is evidence we may be tuning into our own. Mind you, there's no way to know that for sure either — back to the brain in a vat problem. But even if we assume that we are "tuned in" to some remote broadcast instead of creating our own, that still doesn't explain the phenomenon of consciousness.

Anectodal:
I once pulled over to assist an over turned vehicle on the side of the road. The woman and her children were fine, but she was gone. She kept repeating every 3-4 seconds “my kids are ok, right?” like Alzheimer’s + speed. No matter how well received any of my assurances.
When I witnessed this I had the distinct feeling in that she wasn’t there, but that a backup program was running.
Since then I’ve filtered a lot of scenes in my life through that lens.
Now, I’m not saying her Consciousness(or Higher Self, I prefer) wasn’t with her. Perhaps to use your metaphor, she may very well still have been tuned in to her consciousness, but the volume was turned down to 1, while her other Earthly trigger-response programs were up at 9, or 9.5.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

The trouble is, you don't really acknowledge all the relevant evidence on the other side of this question.

Actually I do acknowledge all the relevant evidence on the other side of this question — at least that I'm aware of ( and I've waded through a lot of it ). We just haven't had the time to discuss it.

1) As I have already pointed out, there is a mass of evidence relating to NDE's, including NDE's that contain information that the person themselves did not know prior to the NDE.

Waded through tons of that and other stuff as well — same conclusion

2) There is the remarkable evidence of Prof Ian Stevenson, which shows that (at least sometimes) people die and re-incarnate in another body! There is also at least some evidence that people can remember previous lives while under hypnosis. This was my reason for using the expression, "Tuning in".

What you describe as reincarnation is at best only some sort of information acquisition by another person. It is not a continuity of personhood.

3) Every bit of more mundane psychic evidence, such as the Ganzfeld ESP experiments, shows evidence that consciousness doesn't seem to play by the rules of physicalism.

That would depend on what flavor of physicalism you subscribe to. As I mentioned before, I see all phenomena of nature as physical, and that by extension includes consciousness. But even if we don't go that far, logically, anything non-physical in a model that separates the physical from the non-physical would by definition not be able to interact with the physical, and therefore would be undetectable. However because consciousness is detectable by our physical systems, it must be a physical phenomenon — just one that we don't have an explanation for ( like a lot of other things ).

4) You should also look at the work of Julie Beischel (she has at least one podcast here). She developed a statistical method to test mediums under multiple blind conditions, and she has a list of mediums that pass her tests. This is hard evidence that some mediums at least genuinely contact the dead.

Regardless of whatever evidence Julie as accrued, it still only amounts to some unexplained acquisition of information by a living person. Assigning afterlives as the explanation, is a huge leap in logic.

You seem to be hedging your bets a bit - suggesting that we are part physical, part something else. Then you comment that "True immortality requires that none of what defines us as persons is destroyed – ever" don't think anyone is denying that we shed something as we die!

Not exactly. I suggest that everything, including consciousness, is part of the physical within a philosophical version of physicalism that equates the physical with all phenomena of nature, along with all the rest e.g. gravitation, EM and nuclear forces. Within that model, different kinds of phenomena manifest themselves in different ways depending on how things are arranged.

So it's not simply the case that there are mental phenomena, and non-mental phenomena. There are all sorts of phenomena. Arbitrarily dividing it up so as to create a dualistic distinction is just playing with labels and semantics.

I don't see any reason to use your definition of "True immortality".
David

Like I said, if people don't take into account all the material phenomena associated with our existence as well as the non-material, then they're wilfully ignoring very important facets of what constitutes our personhood, and are therefore self-deluding themselves about continuity of personhood following the death of our body — if that's not a good reason, then I'm not sure what is.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Anectodal:
I once pulled over to assist an over turned vehicle on the side of the road. The woman and her children were fine, but she was gone. She kept repeating every 3-4 seconds “my kids are ok, right?” like Alzheimer’s + speed. No matter how well received any of my assurances.
When I witnessed this I had the distinct feeling in that she wasn’t there, but that a backup program was running.
Since then I’ve filtered a lot of scenes in my life through that lens.
Now, I’m not saying her Consciousness(or Higher Self, I prefer) wasn’t with her. Perhaps to use your metaphor, she may very well still have been tuned in to her consciousness, but the volume was turned down to 1, while her other Earthly trigger-response programs were up at 9, or 9.5.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Like I always say, I do believe that paranormal phenomena exist. I've experienced it myself and been following the developments of researchers for years. So I'm not being blithely dismissive. Something strange is going on, but it's not what people usually think it is, except perhaps in the case of alien visitation, and once we start going down that rabbit hole, virtually every sort of paranormal experience can be explained by some sort connection to that phenomenon.

Note there that I used the word "virtually" because there are of course natural mysteries that may be entirely separate from alien visitation. Maybe the aliens don't understand them either., and that's why they're studying us. Maybe they think we might hold some sort of key.

 

[David Bailey]

Actually I do acknowledge all the relevant evidence on the other side of this question — at least that I'm aware of ( and I've waded through a lot of it ). We just haven't had the time to discuss it.

Waded through tons of that and other stuff as well — same conclusion

What you describe as reincarnation is at best only some sort of information acquisition by another person. It is not a continuity of personhood.

This is where I think you go wrong. As soon as you acknowledge any sort of genuine psi - consciousness working at a distance or accessing the future (for example) you have gone outside of traditional science. While you are strictly within orthodox science, it is reasonable to use Occam's razor to choose any explanation of a phenomenon like (apparent) reincarnation to avoid the idea that mind continue after death. However, once you incorporate ideas like super-psi, you are not inside traditional science, and it is much more dangerous to rely on Occam's Razor. So for example, is it simpler to explain apparent reincarnation in terms of a disembodied spirit entering a new body, or in terms of a lot of high powered psi effects that work to garner enough information to make B believe he was previously A? I would claim that once you are outside orthodox science, the first explanation is simpler and should be chosen.

That would depend on what flavor of physicalism you subscribe to. As I mentioned before, I see all phenomena of nature as physical, and that by extension includes consciousness. But even if we don't go that far, logically, anything non-physical in a model that separates the physical from the non-physical would by definition not be able to interact with the physical, and therefore would be undetectable. However because consciousness is detectable by our physical systems, it must be a physical phenomenon — just one that we don't have an explanation for ( like a lot of other things ).

Well my tentative model of reality assumes mind is always non-physical (which explains the HPC) but can couple with matter via the collapse of the wave function. Obviously I am not alone in thinking that way! The physicist Henri Stapp has written extensively about this concept.

Regardless of whatever evidence Julie as accrued, it still only amounts to some unexplained acquisition of information by a living person. Assigning afterlives as the explanation, is a huge leap in logic.

Frequently in science deciding that something is totally inexplicable in one framework, has nudged people into another framework. The fact that Julie Beischel's results seem inexplicable tells you that your mental view of reality is inadequate.

Earlier I gave you the example from chemistry just before QM. Classically there is no explanation for atoms or molecules having discrete properties.

Not exactly. I suggest that everything, including consciousness, is part of the physical within a philosophical version of physicalism that equates the physical with all phenomena of nature, along with all the rest e.g. gravitation, EM and nuclear forces. Within that model, different kinds of phenomena manifest themselves in different ways depending on how things are arranged.

So it's not simply the case that there are mental phenomena, and non-mental phenomena. There are all sorts of phenomena. Arbitrarily dividing it up so as to create a dualistic distinction is just playing with labels and semantics.

Like I said, if people don't take into account all the material phenomena associated with our existence as well as the non-material, then they're wilfully ignoring very important facets of what constitutes our personhood, and are therefore self-deluding themselves about continuity of personhood following the death of our body — if that's not a good reason, then I'm not sure what is.

People have puzzled over the mind-body problem for a long time. The concept of a mental (non-material) world coupled to the physical world via the collapse of the wave function is a plausible way to think about this problem. Henry Stapp points out that you don't actually need any extension of QM to achieve this coupling. His concept is that if you observe a QM system (with some weak perturbations) very frequently, then you can effectively lock it into its current eigenstate. If you stop observing the system, it will evolve because of the perturbations. You can use this to couple the non-physical and the physical, but he points out at one place that there is no real reason to assume that consciousness can't collapse a wave function to a chosen eigenstate.

With that sort of framework, you can explain a lot of evidence without contrived explanations in which things appear to be one thing but are really something else. Remember, those kids who claim to be reincarnated, talk about "My previous mother", "My house", "I felt very ill, and then .....". Calling that access to some stored information is a very contrived explanation.

David

 

[Bhakti]

We all know about social engineering. But I went into shock re the role of Bernays when I listened to The Century of the Self years ago (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00ghx6g), including his consulting to Woodrow when he toured as Europe's savior after WWI: "We need to make the world safe for democracy" was a Bernays invention.

I recently found a woman who brilliantly deconstructs the ops used in perception engineering, including cognitive dissonance and the Stockholm syndrome and gaslighting: meredithmiller.substack.com (She was an expert witness at the Reiner Fuellmich Grand Jury proceedings: https://www.grand-jury.net/ ~ scroll down )

She recently exposed a 2020 Yale study re how to manipulate public opinion re the "vaccines": https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04460703

Know your enemy.