War on Science? …or Corporate Pseudo-Science PR Campaign?

In this week’s edition of Mind Hack, Jeff DeRiso discusses the new human rights proposal to protect against invasive mind hacks.  He explores the rhetoric surrounding the War on Science narrative and the March for Science, attempting to understand the motives behind this media campaign.  Also, what happens when brilliant scientists research things that powerful forces want to remain hidden?  Finally, we discuss another volley in the battle over “fake news” between the world’s largest superpower nations, with Russia calling for the UN to step in and officiate.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel 

***Support Newsbud on Kickstarter

Show notes:

New human rights to protect against 'mind hacking' and brain data theft proposed

Propaganda and the War on Science

Flashback: Story of Paul Bennewitz and UFO Disinformation

UN must lead battle against ‘pandemic’ of fake news & disinformation – Russian FM spokeswoman

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. TopHat says:

    Excellent program, Jeff. You raise a number of important issues. From extensive personal & family experience you are right to ask questions about scientific integrity.

    One of the biggest–and most common–impediments to genuine exploration and discovery, is that current academic scientists are forced to raise funds for their work. This means they are limited to respecting the biases and preferences of their academic and institutional/funding “superiors” as to what questions are ok to be asked. In many cases, funding comes directly or indirectly from corporations or government agencies with their own agendas. This in turn means that the research done (or not done) is strictly controlled. Like journalists in mainstream media, young scientists quickly learn what topics, approaches, or questions are “off limits”. Science is actually quite limited in what it does, yet we are mistakenly led to believe that it is about the search for knowledge. Scientists are human beings and they have to feed their family.

    99% of science is done in incremental ways that do not address the most genuinely pressing problems or introduce new thinking. Rather, as with journalists who might start idealistically, the goal quickly morphs into doing what they need to do to keep their job and pay their mortgage and advance their careers to some extent. In science, unlike journalism, it is often impossible to carry out research without “playing in the sandbox” of those controlling structures whose funding provides the labs and other infrastructure.

    As one example, and touching on your mention of medical/pharmacology research–did you ever wonder why there is almost no research on food as medicine? (Even though in many societies around the world, and particularly in Asia, the healing properties of food were once well understood and a mainstay of personal and public health. But that would not suit Big Pharma or Big Medicine.)

    • trueanalysis.eu says:

      Great point TopHat. And sad as well.
      I see the same, in our society people need to sell themselves in order to survive.
      And those who can afford to discuss about this or change things, first need to succeed in this crazy race for the “best” student, employee… Then they can afford to slow down and think. Should be the other way round, shouldn’t it?

  2. Michal Rymes says:

    Jeff such a honest and great work again, you are trully a brilliant smart guy.
    Keep it up mate. I love your show and in fact I came back and re-subscribed mainly because of Mind Hack.
    This kind of news makes the difference.

  3. Spot-on Jeff, thanks for presenting the information.
    We want to restore the mechanism by which talking about human rights leads to formation of related legislation while keeping the constitution valid. Even the people who have their bread paid by institutes and corps that reside outside the legislative frameworks that apply to the human being should consider doing so.
    Science today is limited to reductionist views on the complexity of life, including the political life. Any deviation from reductionist thinking is not only un-published. Even worse, it is no longer understood by the scientific community. As an example take cholesterol, view the ‘metabolic chart’ and search for the acetyl CoA -> cholesterol path, the so-called mevalonate pathway. Anyone with an academic view will notice that a) this path is in isolation non-existent amidst the multitude of cyclic ties and feedback mechanisms; and b) statins do a lot more than reducing cholesterol. Therefore the claim that statins ‘safely and effectively’ reduce cholesterol is questionable. You would certainly enjoy an interview with Prof. T.C. Campbell, a respected professor-emeritus who has a clear view on the limitations of reductionist science.
    Looking ahead, future science is in any case based on the manipulated conclusions of today’s science, which is an undesired situation. Redirecting science towards reality, legitimate questions, prudence and respect would go directly against the interests of the individuals working for the corps. Given that funding science is today 100% in the hands of corporations -their single product being maximizing revenue and margin without an upper limit until the court stops them- the battle will be hard.
    Because you mentioned vaccines, consider the collection of interviews with critical scientists in the series ‘The Truth About Vaccines’. many respected scientists airing their views on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Related, the mainstream magazine for MD’s in my mailbox today has a front page with an advertisement for vaccines, the back page showing an advertisement for allergy medication…
    To stay in the mindhack – flashback frame: A previous (BFP) article I remember was about Zika and microcephaly. The flashback: this week I came across an article on ‘Operation Big Buzz’. See “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States” the paragraph on 1950s.
    Keep going, highly appreciated.

  4. Money yet again responsible for apathy and lack of ethics – because people don’t want to risk financial ruin. Which is the whole point of having money – economic slavery. Imagine all the things Newsbud could cover if money wasn’t in the equation. Imagine how many creative things you would do if you didn’t need money. Money has no intrinsic value. We are so brainwashed we literally can’t imagine a world without it. Why would we think that about something we can’t eat or drink or breathe?

    I have read 1905 newspapers stating quite plainly that smoking caused lung cancer, but apparently Science only recently proved the link. It seems everything must be viewed in a dialectic sense – either or. Science until very recently told us ET can’t be visiting here, because it would take too long. If that is not the definition of unscientific reasoning I don’t know what is. Either way, the problem is the way in which people have been villified on this topic, rather than in an open mindedness by the scientific community. Plenty are motivated by arrogance rather than financial security when they speak the most ignorant assertions.

    Interesting note on Doty, Jeff. A shady character for sure. I don’t see the misinformation as pushing one theory over another. Rather to muddy the waters so that everyone is confused. The most probable explanation is that some are ours, some are ‘theirs’. All black projects explanation does not account for events that took place pre-20th century. Or is there no past in this post-truth world? Or are they time travellers? Balanced views on this are Richard Dolan, historian and Daniel Sheehan, US attorney.

    Now that the mainstream has been given permission, they are all talking about finding life – perhaps civilization ‘out there’. Mars seemed an impossible distance, until quite suddenly NASA discovers it has the means to do it in eight months. I predict by the time of launch it will magically be eight hours.

    In the age of the mind hack, we need to analyse and use our common sense.

Speak Your Mind