Thirty years ago, the man who learnt me quantum mechanics at Harvard wrote that the suppression of debate will be the “death of science”. Perhaps “hes seen” the shape of things to come.
Today, science is being debased for political objectives to an amazing dimension. To look for an appropriate analogy, we would have to go back to the authority of the Church in prehistoric Europe.
“Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.” — Anthony Fauci
So G-d speaks through the mouth of the Pope, and maybe the Prophet Elijah and Charles Manson. But the Good Doctor of NIAID is the one with a direct word to Science.
My point is not that Fauci has grown too big for his britches, but that discipline is not religion. The entire reason that we trust science is that it’s a society of open debate. Dr Fauci aspires to be the high priest of epidemiology. But if discipline carries more weight than the Church, it’s not because its priests are smarter or better qualified, it’s because discipline has no priests.
Science intends suggesting the speciman on its merits, and saying on the merits is exactly what they are trying to avoid by come anyone who disagrees with them, “anti-science”.
A real scientist said,
Science is not a establish of beliefs. Scientists don’t trust anything … You always have to be ready to have your favorite hypothesi proven wrong, and if you’re not, you shouldn’t be doing science.[ Video]
Eight months back, I wrote about the hijack of the imprimatur of “science” for political expirations. Of route, politicization of science is much older than eight months. Perhaps it’s as aged as The Enlightenment, but certainly as age-old as Social Darwinism and the Fabian Society. But the present curve of censoring began five years ago, with a gradual but persistent advance in the mainstream press to legitimize censorship.
Protecting the public from “fake news”
“Fake news” wasn’t a thing until five years ago. The lies of Donald Trump were regarded more dangerous than other lies, and the Beltway think tanks decided that the Public needed protection. For the 227 years before this, we Americans generally agreed that freedom of the press harboured the highest value for the viability of democracy. Deciding what is true and forbidding the publication of fallacies is just like a good hypothesi exclusively for the first millisecond, until you ask, “who decides what is true? ”. Stalin knew well the dominance of Pravda. Hitler had his Volkischer Beobachter. Do you recollect the root of the utterance “memory hole”? George Orwell described in detail the route in which totalitarian governments must constantly rewrite biography to backing a constantly-changing agenda.
Donald Trump was dangerous to the Establishment not because his lies are the most noxious or most convincing than other lies, but because rarely, the digres, self-serving monologue that incessantly streamed from his lips included some awkward truths. He charged that software in voting machines was rigged. He talked about aiming the Middle eastern countries wars. He proposed a new, independent investigation into 9/11. He promised to declassify millions of sheets of armed documents on UFOs. The Establishment is necessary to stillnes Trump , not to protect the Public, but to protect the Establishment.
Lately, it is fashionable to smugly dismisses the deranged beliefs of “right-wing kooks” rather than endure the disadvantage of documenting just why these beliefs are “right-wing” and why they are wrong. This recent propaganda piece from University of Southern California manipulates dread of The Deadly Virus to promote an idea that is far more deadly: legitimizing government surveillance of the persons with minds at odds with the prevailing narrative. Need I reminded the committee that the Fourth Amendment forbids the authorities concerned from spying on citizens unless a reviewer has issued a search warrant, based on evidence that law enforcement agencies need this information to investigate a crime that has already been committed.
“Crime prevention” is an idea I can endorse with full conscience when it involves anti-poverty sets, medication rehab business, and residence for the homeless. But arresting beings before they commit crimes is a practice perfectly are prohibited under a millennium of British and American common law, and for the very best of reasons: It has historically been used to jail the political opposition and obstruct the machinations of the potent. It’s probably true-blue that AI can spawn statistical predictions about who will commit a crime based on videos, and certainly true that the potential for abuse of this technology is a red flag.
Research behind the USC piece accompanies republican political positions with doubts about vaccination. The unstated suggest is that inoculations are so obviously and universally safe that the only reason even to study their safety would be an anti-science bias which, incidentally, is common among militants of the Far RIght.
Why do some people decline the COVID vaccine? Harmonizing to the NYTimes, It lies in the fact that their think is deranged. It can’t possibly be because vaccines are less safe and less effective as a COVID preventive than traditional, well-tested sets such as vitamin D, zinc, ivermectin, and hydroxychloroquine. It can’t have anything to do with the fact that twice as many people have died from the COVID vaccines compared to the sum total of all other inoculations in the history of the VAERS reporting system.[ This simple numerical announcement has been fact-checked by all the usual believes and settled “false”. What does this say about the fact-checkers ?]
This month, the cover story of Harvard Magazine was to be established by a young faculty columnist with no technical background. The name poses the question, “Can Disinformation be Stopped? ”, while discounting important preliminary questions, “Should disinformation be stopped? ” and “How can we tell disinformation from intelligence? ” and “Whom can we trust with the awesome responsibility of detecting truth from misrepresentation? ” The three examples of “disinformation” quoth on the comprise are nothing of the sorting, and in fact are topics where questioning points to deep sources of corruption, which the Powers that Be are most desperate to suppress. 1. “Election in question: were referendums stolen? ” 2. “Hydroxychloroquine is the cure for COVID-1 9” 3. “5G Networks Spread Coronavirus”
“Election in question: were votes stolen? ” America has a sordid but mainly hidden autobiography of poll crime. But the Help America Vote Act of 2001 has opened the floodgates for election theft on an unprecedented scale. Polls are so much easier to steal because election tabulation is accomplished with black-box software that has been regulated a “trade secret” by our highest court. I have been a statistical consultant to ballot stability activists since the 2004 poll was stolen in Ohio on behalf of George W. Bush. We have abused exit polls as the best available check on election results, and “were having” seen a developing rightward alteration in the reported Federal outcomes compared to exit polls. But in 2020, there were no exit polls for the first time in modern American history. So countless beings forwarded their ballots that the people who showed up at the referendums could not be considered a fair sample. In short, 2020 was the most opaque election in American record. There is no reason to trust the reported election results. At a duration when America desperately needs a system of tabulation that the average voter can trust, all questioning of election tabulations is humiliated as the nervous myths of right-wing stalwarts.[ No, I’m not saying that “Trump certainly won”; I’m saying that I have no mind who truly won, and that questioning our ballot system is not only legitimate but essential for the future of democracy .] “Hydroxychloroquine is the cure for COVID-1 9” The American CDC and NIH have been criminally guilty in suppressing effective remedies and medicines for COVID since the onset of the pandemic. Exhibit A is a super-sized observational study of 100,000 COVID cases on 3 continents that was rushed through peer review last year and published prominently in Britain’s most prestigious medical journal. But “they dont have” data to back up this study. It was forsworn. It was an obvious and scandalous technical fraud, used to discredit the most effective available therapy, obstructing alive the fear of COVID until a vaccine “couldve been” exhausted. In combining with zinc, chloroquine is a safe and effective preventative or early treatment. But doctors have been fired for prescribing it, and pharmacists have been succession not to crowd prescriptions. Later, Ivermectin, an even more effective treatment for COVID, handy at all stages, has been demonstrated. Dr Pierre Kory and Dr Peter McCullough each witnessed before Congress about the remarkable effectiveness of their management protocols, but to no avail. Is Ivermectin a right-wing drug? America’s most popular expert on natural medicine received death threats when he affixed attest on his blog that vitamin D abates the severity of COVID. Medications was also being smothered by authority, by social media, and by medical permissions. This has penalty millions of lives worldwide. It is being done to keep fear of COVID alive, and to made to ensure that inoculations are the only game in city. If I may offer my professional sentiment as a biostatistician: Many more beings going to die of COVID in the last year than if the world’s governments had done nothing at all, imposed no restrictions on commerce or culture, and allowed the medical structure to operate without obstruction as it has in the past.
“5G Networks Spread Coronavirus” There are thousands of credible studies associating radio frequency radiation with distres, recession, insomnia, inability to concentrate, and even cancer. There are known mechanisms by which such non-ionizing radiation affects electrochemical cell signaling. Still, the report contains physicists and operators who reject the possibilities offered by biological influences from cell phone radiation on theoretical anchors. For 30 times, the telecom industry has stonewalled, denying that further regulation is necessary, publishing bogus studies that report “no substantial evidence” of peril.( Let me wear my statistician’s hat again, to tell you that it is very easy to design research studies that fails to produce evidence of associations that are real, but much harder to design a study that demoes associations when none realy exist .) Last-place week, I was on a panel of engineers discussing safety standards for a new generation of cell phone technology. Most representatives were inclined to impose the burden of proof on those of us claiming a threat. In other terms, unless we have been able to clearly prove that 5G technology compelled disease and we could explain a physical mechanism of mischief, they thought that implementation of 5G should continue without safety standards. This is opposite to the attitude that American security regulators have taken in every other field of technology. Why are state standards being determined by electrical architects with no background in health disciplines? And yes, there is legitimate and ruffling discipline associating higher COVID death rates in cities where 5G has been adopted early.
Make no mistake about it: The “fake news” campaign is not about protecting the public from lies; preferably it is about building a state-sanctioned news network, which has been a central pillar for the stability of every totalitarian regime in biography. Despotic governors can only remain in power by obscure the truth of what they are doing from the people they govern. Conversely, there is indeed no meaningful republic if there is only one beginning of centrally-managed information.
Other lessons, past and present
For decades, UFO sightings were impostor bulletin. Now we’re supposed to believe that UFOs are real, but that the tens of millions of Americans who believed in them before that creed was sanctioned are naive, naive thrill-seekers. None of the investigative reporters who have clothed UFOs in the past are welcome when the self-important talking heads discuss UFOs as a new phenomenon.
Last year, the idea that COVID arose in a lab was bullshit report. Now it’s mainstream science, so long as you accused COVID on sloppy safety standards at Chinese laboratories. Questioning the bioweapons experiment at Fort Detrick and nine other American Biosafety Level 4 laboratories is still verboten in the public discourse. Moreover, the idea that COVID might have been deliberately exhausted is nowhere mentioned, in spite of all the simulations and preparedness utilizations that seemed to foretell the future with their focus on Coronaviruses of Chinese origin.
Twenty years ago, on September 11, the Twin Towers and a third tower not struck by aircraft all descended straight down in free fall, demonstrating there was zero resistance from the steel structure underneath. In one moment, the sword is holding up a 110 -storey building; in the next instant there is nothing inhibiting its downfall. It doesn’t happen in nature that all the supporting members exactly happen to melt at precisely the same moment. This involves accuracy engineering and precisely-timed explosive charges. And more, if you search for “9/ 11 build collapse”, Google will extend you to the forswore Federal NIST report claim, absurdly, that breakdowns of all three constructs were the natural and expected results of localise barrages. You can find the realistic science that proves all three structures were wired for defeat if you search through DuckDuckGo. Science profs have lost their jobs for telling the truth about 9/11.
58 years ago, John Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas. The Warren Commission report concluded that a single bullet passed up and down and in and out of Kennedy’s body, subsequently breaking the weapon of John Connally, then Governor of Texas, and falling out of his person onto the gurney, unscarred, where it could be conveniently discovered by hospital personnel. Despite the fact that the Warren Report is physically inconceivable, and despite the fact that a Congressional committee in 1979 concluded that Kennedy was “probably” killed by a conspiracy rather than a lone gunman, scientific challenges to the official narrative are banned from Wikipedia and social media. There are many good books, and you can preview some of the truth on Wikipedia’s page for plot conjectures.
But the story of vaccines is in a class by itself, by far the most successful corporate propaganda campaign in biography. In every other field, we characterize obsessive fanaticism by its extreme precept, taking an absolute position, with no recognition of subtlety and no regard to evidence. This is the attitude of the religious zealot. But in the case of vaccines, the hype narrative has turned this common sense on its head. All inoculations are safe. All inoculations are effective. This is the “scientific position”. Anyone who questions a particular inoculation, or links a side-effect, or claims that getting the disease plies more effective protection than taking the vaccine, is an “anti-vaxxer”, a science-denier, a menace to the universal social good of herd immunity. BTW, the period, “herd immunity” used to be defined in the world of public health as a condition of a population which had been through the disease, and so was resistant to future scourges. In the age of COVID, “herd immunity” has been re-defined by WHO as a benefit that can only be discussed by vaccines.
Epilogue
My mentor at Harvard( first paragraph) was Julian Schwinger, one of the most gorgeous physicists of the 20 th Century, who shared the 1965 Nobel prize winner with Richard Feynman for( independently) articulating relativistic quantum discipline presumption. His physics newspapers had been prized by the scientific community and were published in top-tier physics journals ever since, as an 18 -year-old wunderkind working under J Robert Oppenheimer, he imparted pioneering research in nuclear physics. But after the cold fusion controversy of 1989, Schwinger became interested in the phenomenon, and advocated some depth theoretical insights. He was told by the world’s foremost physics journal that they would not consider a paper on cold fusion because the editors didn’t believe it was real. This is what stimulated Schwinger’s warning about the future of physics. He resigned from the American Physical Society in protest.
I first discovered the cold fusion story in 2012. Over the ensuing two years, I attended two conferences and toured five cold fusion laboratories. I can attest from talking to the experimental scientists and reviewing their data that cold fusion is real. Of course, the potential for solving the world’s energy problems and for learn fundamentally new principles of physics are both monumentally eliciting. Despite countless replications of cold fusion worldwide and various business engaging it as a new power source, this remains a topic that mainstream physics magazines refuse to touch.
Real science is never served by censorship. You, readers of ScienceBlog, have intuitively ability this truth from the beginning. Where you head, the world will follow.
Read more: experimentalfrontiers.scienceblog.com
Recent Comments