by Al_Sharpton_for_President ➕follow (5) 💰tip ($0.12 in tips) ignore
Comments 1 - 24 of 24
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
America needs a Small Business Administration, that actually gives loans to budding entrepreneurial innovators and industrialists
The problem with everything being made and sold by a few companies. Is Innovation through Science takes a back seat, and how to make what we make now cheaper or smaller.
“The more the media peddled fear, the more the people lost the ability to believe in one another. For every new ill that befell them, the media created an explanation, and the explanation always had a face and a name. The people came to fear even their closest neighbors. At the level of the individual, the community, and the nation, people sought signs of others’ ill intentions; and everywhere they looked, they found them, for this is what looking does.” -Bernard Beckett
How do you characterize something that is unhealthy and spreads between hosts?
What happens when corrupt science goes viral? What is the impact of a fraudulent, or ill-considered result cited and re-cited in an expanding tree of scientific literature?
We're talking about Viral Absurdities—just not the cute or funny type. Can we rebuild our collective immune system?
March 15, 2022
Preprint server accused of censorship for removing “inflammatory” scientific papers
Allegedly refusing to allow dissent.
By Didi Rankovic
Cornell University’s arXiv, an open-access archive and free distribution service for scientific material, is embroiled in a controversy that has little if anything to do with science, but instead with “moderation” standards.
It started with the use of what the arXiv administrators have labeled as “inflammatory content and unprofessional language.”
arXiv is used as a “preprint server” for preliminary versions of scientific papers that are moderated but not peer-reviewed or published yet. The controversy’s source can be traced back to an article that had to do with room temperature superconductivity, Science magazine reports, but those who tried posting research that aims to prove an opposing point of view are in hot water on arXiv.
Not satisfied with removing posted papers, or refusing to post new ones, arXiv also went to the trouble of banning University of California San Diego (UCSD) theoretical physicist Jorge Hirsch from posting for six months.
Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. This slowly crept in in 2020 and then accelerated, faster than you can warp speed a new vaccine, to firmly dominate the landscape by 2021.
The trance of antiscience was comforting for people. It provided them with solutions to their problems. Even if those solutions didn’t work, it didn’t matter because it acted as a psychological comfort blanket. It allowed them to actively do something and be seen to be doing something to improve life during a pandemic.
On the surface antiscience might seem harmless. If it made people feel better, made them less anxious and more likely to return to normal life then that must be a good thing? However, antiscience is in fact very dangerous because once a population can be trained to believe something that isn’t actually true, anything is possible. The dangers of antiscience are for another article but it leads to dark places where unvaccinated people were being denied hospital treatment.
With regard to this article on rising cases, antiscience is a major reason for this. Until January 2022 time, people were still very firmly in the antiscience vaccine trance. However, Omicron came along and everyone started getting it. The members of the vaccinated population that were in that trance (including the cowardly lion, the brainless scarecrow and the heartless tin man) pulled back the curtain and found Fauci sitting on a throne laughing at them.
Here are five of the most widely used “plays” and some of the many cases where they have been used to block regulations or minimize corporate liability, often with frightening effectiveness—and disastrous repercussions on public health and safety.
Following the Science is Impossible and Stupid
Institutional science follows politics; it will always endorse central regime policies.
... Science isn’t some objective reasonable force outside of politics. Scientists spend most of their careers chasing government grant funding, and fighting for appointments and promotions in government-funded university systems. Science follows politics, and nobody knows this as much as the disingenuous politicians who claim that their policies are subordinate to scientific findings.
DOWNLOAD THE WEF GRADUATE LIST
PLEASE ATTRIBUTE THE MALONE INSTITUTE AND THE PHAROS/MEDIA FOUNDATION FOR THEIR WORK IN CREATING THIS DOCUMENT, IF YOU REPUBLISH THE LIST.
“Our systems for medical science, healthcare, and wellness are fundamentally broken. It is time for more than just words, it is time for substantial and lasting change.”
Our mission is to bring back integrity to the biological sciences and medicine. We also support and conduct research, education, and informational activities in infectious disease and bio-threat research and assessment, as well as engage in other scientific and medical research.
The World Economic Forum: Science and Medicine Project
The Malone Institute has undertaken the task of writing about the WEF and the implications for the world - inverted totalitarianism. We have partnered with the Pharos Foundation and have created a comprehensive database on all WEF graduates since 1992.
GO TO OUR WEF PAGE
Physician's Right to Practice
Early intervention with numerous, available agents has proven to be safe and effective, and have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. No medicine already given regulatory approval, shall be restricted from “off-label” use, particularly during this global humanitarian crisis caused by a rapidly mutating virus, which requires quick to adopt treatment strategies. Health agencies should not physicians prescribing evidence-based treatments they deem necessary, and insurance companies must cease blocking payments for life-saving medicine prescribed by doctors.
Please consider signing the Global Covid Summit Declaration
Corruption at HHS
This issue is so big and embedded in our government, that this is an endeavor that requires all of us. The medical sciences and medicine in the USA must be re-imaged. A new vision is needed. This begins by exposing the corruption and lies, educating the public, shining a light into the dark corners of our government - including lobbying and transactional relationships that feed big pharma (such as the revolving door between pharma and the FDA), as well as the WEF.
It is time for the entire re-structuring of science and medicine in the USA.
The Malone Doctrine
The Malone Doctrine: Harmonizing integrity throughout organizations and individuals by signage of our doctrine is a place where we can all start. Moving forward, the Malone Institute is educating organizations, governments and individuals on best practices regarding integrity in all aspects of our organizational lives.
Declaration IV - Restore Scientific Integrity
A Joint Statement, representing 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists to end the National Emergency, Restore Scientific Integrity, and Address Crimes Against Humanity.
MAY 11, 2022
America Needs a Rebirth of Science.
A healthy and flourishing republic requires a social and political climate that respects true scientific inquiry and exploration. The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the astonishing capacity of science to produce breakthroughs such as vaccines and other drugs for the public good. At the same time, we have seen the biggest public-health fiasco in history, and the marginalization and censoring of dissident scientists. The pandemic has exposed myriad long-standing problems facing science that go far beyond a single virus.
In science, centralization has created a harmful uniformity and herd thinking that hinders the free exchange of ideas. A de facto scientific cartel system determines who receives essential research funding; who ends up published in the most prestigious and influential journals; and who are promoted to more senior positions. In many scientific fields, a small group of senior scientists — who may have an interest in their ideas not being challenged — determines who will be published and who will get the research grants. Ultimately, this system creates a highly impenetrable and shielded sphere of thinking that crowds out new ideas and true scientific debate.
For instance, the majority of U.S. infectious-disease research is funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). With Dr. Anthony Fauci as its director, infectious-disease scientists think twice before criticizing the pandemic policies advocated by Dr. Fauci. A similar situation exists in the United Kingdom, with Dr. Jeremy Farrar and the Wellcome Trust. It should not surprise us that some of the most important epidemiological research on the pandemic has come from smaller countries, including Israel, Qatar, Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland.
The solution to the current state of stifling scientific sclerosis is not an abandonment of science. Instead, science must be reformed, restored, and reinvigorated so all scientists can engage with independence and boldness in the pursuit of a never-ending horizon.
For too long, there has been a longstanding slowdown in support for challenging paradigms — a “graying” of science that has resulted in talented scientists receiving their first large grants when they are ten years older than was typical of scientists in the past. The conflict of interest between Dr. Fauci’s roles as funder and lockdown architect is merely one example of how those within existing power structures in the scientific community control which ideas are deemed valid. Those wielding power are afraid of having their views and orthodoxy overturned. Those who control the funding and the publication are often the same people, and peer review itself has shifted from controlling quality to controlling ideas.
It’s not an exaggeration to view the iron-fisted grip over the funding and publication of new scientific findings as a threat to the continuation of scientific freedom. It’s increasingly hard for ideas that challenge orthodoxy to break through. This is a recipe for a prolonged stagnation that could jeopardize the societal well-being, economic health, and security of the United States.
Not only do new ideas face an artificial and harmful barrier, but major powers within science now affix themselves to narratives before all the evidence is in. The scientific process has always been based on truth-seeking, disagreement, and the free exchange of ideas. Truth-seeking itself relies on an evidence-based process of debate free from fear of censorious ramifications. Yet now, anyone who dares to speak out against the “accepted” conclusions of America’s self-designated scientific priestly class is marginalized. Declarations of false consensus have worked as intended (to intimidate alternative views), and scientists have silenced themselves to guard their careers.
The scientific method should not result in permanent maxims. It should be a field of adventure for researchers who are always waiting for the next development and seeking further discovery. True science involves a dialectical process: One hypothesis brings forth competing ones; to settle conflicting hypotheses, research is conducted. That’s how science is supposed to work. That’s how science helps us learn. But if that process is replaced with unquestionable dogma, it can’t in good conscience be called science.
The method for evaluating scientific productivity has become dysfunctional. Scientists used to be valued for their creativity, ingenuity, and genius. Today, however, too much value is placed on perceived influence. Advancement within science depends on other scientists citing your work. The incentive to work on radical new ideas that challenge scientific orthodoxy is blunted in such a system. Since most new ideas take time to be noticed or to fail, most scientists will instead choose the safer route of incremental science. In contrast to the ethos of Silicon Valley — which encouraged entrepreneurial risk-taking and recognized that failure is essential — science today rewards conformity.
It’s vital for all members of a free society to trust science. But for that to happen, we need a rebirth of authentic science. In the face of the challenges confronting science, we are partnering with Hillsdale College to help return science to its proper form.
The Academy for Science and Freedom will educate the American people about the free exchange of scientific ideas and the proper relationship between freedom and science in the pursuit of truth. We will work for reforms in scientific publishing, funding, and promotion, in order to restore the incentives to pursue new ideas in an environment that rejects dogma and accepts debate and discussion as central.
Science must once again be seen as a vibrant method that tends toward truth but that’s always at risk of being overturned by the next discovery. Right now, the public is not getting from the scientific community what it needs, what it deserves, and what it pays for.