Don’t trust their plan to rebuild our trust in science

The elimination of dissent and the marginalisation of scientists sceptical of the establishment’s scientific and medical agenda will destroy the scientific process – unless reversed.

Find out how the concept of ‘scientific misinformation’ has been deliberately spun to make it the primary weapon aimed at protecting the interests of the status quo. As well as what we can do about it.

By Rob Verkerk PhD
Founder, executive & scientific director, ANH-Intl
Scientific director, ANH-USA
Scientific director, ANH Europe

“Those who refuse to consider an unconventional idea in science are disturbingly similar to those who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope”
– AVI LOEB, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, MAY 17, 2021

Professor Avi Loeb, world renowned physicist, best-selling author, regular contributor to Scientific American, and Frank B. Baird Jr Professor of Science at Harvard University, didn’t write these words lightly. He knows a thing or two about how scientific breakthroughs occur, and just how challenging it can be to move the needle of the scientific orthodoxy after it settles into a pattern that he likens to religious dogma.

More than that, he’s far from alone. Any half serious scientist understands the importance of dissent and discourse if we’re to see genuine scientific progress that benefits people and planet.

Yet we face a time in history wherein the manipulation of both information and people, in order to serve the interests of particular governments and corporations, is unprecedented. While this process is clearly deliberately engineered, the groupthink that has given this process such momentum is less deliberate.

Huge numbers of people, from scientists and medics, through to politicians, bureaucrats and the public at large, have become unwitting victims of a very subtle and insidious process that conflates technology with science.

You don’t have to look hard to find examples of this conflation. Back in early 2021, anyone who suggested safety data on C19 genetic vaccines were inadequate and insufficiently transparent was dismissed as being anti-science. Actually, many of us who did just this us are pro-science. We are simply risk aware over a novel technology that we consider was insufficiently tested before being unleashed on the masses. I’m not exactly sure when being cautious became synonymous with being anti-science or a conspiracy theorist? But I think it was around 3 years ago.

Retired neurosurgeon Russell Blaycock – a medic who is now able to stand up and not have to worry about the risk of losing his medical license to practice – opened his editorial in the journal Surgical Neurology International as follows:

“The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream led by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies. We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence”.

However, as poignant and accurate as Dr Blaycock’s views may be, they run entirely counter to the narrative of the medico-technological establishment that is in effect a collusion of Big Pharma, Big Biotech, Big Tech, Big Social and Big Media interests.

This multi-headed Hydra is now running the show on what is to be determined as real science or scientific misinformation. This is bad science at its best and it represents a very dangerous chapter in human history. More dangerous, I believe, than any military-based war that has been fought to-date.

With Blaycock’s wise words and gallant warning barely getting a look-in from the corporations that control mainstream information flow, the majority of people are much more likely to come across the following take on science and the public perception of it.

“A survey of over 2000 British adults has found that public trust in science, particularly genetics, increased significantly during the pandemic. However, those with extremely negative attitudes towards science tend to have a high self-belief in their own understanding despite low textbook knowledge.”

So opens an Oxford University piece on trust in science based on a study funded by the Genetics Society carried out by a multi-institutional team of academics in conjunction with the public polling company Kantar Public. The study involved a sample of 2000 Brits, with fieldwork carried out between 1st and 10th June 2021. The findings and its implications were published in PLoS Biology  on January 24, 2023. Note that the time period of this study was in the relatively early days of the C19 vaccine roll-out, before a large body of the critical science that is currently available had been published.

This work provides a useful summation of the mainstream scientific establishment’s views on this thorny subject.  These views, in turn, feed directly into the machine that is now seriously gathering pace in an attempt to put ever greater numbers of people under the spell of current day scientism.This is the kind of ‘science’ that aims to fuel the unpredictable and potentially hazardous waters of the AI-infused fourth industrial revolution (4IR).

Based on this, here is a summary of the mainstream view on scientific misinformation:

  • Attitude influences position on scientific matters. What people think they know about science is strongly related to their attitude towards it. For example, if they oppose genetically modified foods or covid-19 genetic vaccines, the mainstream view upholds that they are likely to search out and cherry pick facts that support these positions, these facts not being representative of the totality of scientific evidence
  • Dissenters are generally bad scientists. Those who oppose ‘well-evidenced science’ are likely to have a poor objective understanding of it (= objective knowledge), and an elevated sense of self-belief and overconfidence about their understanding of it (= subjective knowledge)
  • Dissenters have a pumped up sense of their scientific understanding. The mechanisms for overconfidence and high self-belief among those who have poor scientific competence and literacy are not fully understood. But it is proposed that they are associated with two main factors; the first is a fear, distrust or disgust with things they don’t understand; the second is their assumed lesser ability to understand both their own limitations as well as the findings and expertise of leading scientists.

The power and momentum behind this heavily and multi-laterally funded Hydra, that now has its crosshairs focused on building public trust in science, should not be under-estimated. Its globally coordinated rise to prominence also suggests that the scientific establishment is more than slightly troubled by the public’s low level of trust over its activities, despite upbeat pronouncements like the one from Oxford University mentioned above.

An example of the anti-‘misinformation’ machine’s imminent outputs will be the Nobel Prize Summit on Truth, Trust and Hope that will run as a hybrid event in Washington DC between May 24-26, 2023. Among its objectives will be to “Identify how stakeholders work together to develop, adopt, and implement robust solutions for restoring truth, rebuilding trust, and promoting hope”. This is expected to be achieved by consensus among the gathered “Nobel Prize laureates, science experts, policy makers, educators and students”.

Reality check

Hold your horses, I hear you say. Those of us who have countered the mainstream narrative since the World Health Organization’s announcement of the C19 pandemic in March 2020 (check out our reverse chronology of articles on the subject here), will typically tell ourselves that we do have a fairly good grasp of the available science.

We might even think it’s THEY who don’t understand it, that’s why authorities who relied on that science put much of the world into lockdowns, masked them, then exposed them to mass vaccination using novel, genetically-based platforms that had barely been tested on humans. All on the strength of a few, flimsy Big Pharma press releases issued in November 2020 (see PfizerModerna and AstraZeneca releases, respectively). These all made sky high effectiveness claims that were almost unprecedented in the world of vaccine science, as well as reporting no significant safety signals.

Read the full article at www.anhinternational.org

About the author: Robert Verkerk BSc MSc DIC PhD FACN is  Founder, Executive & Scientific Director of Natural Health International (ANH-Intl) and over four decades worked in non-profits, academia and as a consultant. He has masters and doctorate degrees from Imperial College London, where he also worked as a postdoctoral research fellow for 7 years.

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Tom

    |

    Until the 1986 vaccines laws are rescinded and there is a long term study involving thousands of vaccinated verses unvaccinated children done by an independent research group, there is NO trust for me in anything big pharma related.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan

      |

      They had the support of most health professionals an politicians. Who can we trust?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        aaron

        |

        trust no one, esp mainstream

        think fer yourself, trust yourself

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi PSI Readers,

    I have been telling my wife, a biologist, and my friends who have not studied scientific knowledge. that the ‘life sciences” are completely different from the “physical sciences”. Since I was a teacher and still am, I ask: How are humans different from atoms?

    And if neither Tom nor Alan attempt to answer this question they both fail my PSI science class. For I have read many comments that scientists are curious and evidently they are not curious enough to give an answer to begin a discussion.

    Have a good day

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg Spinolae

    |

    No “actual scientist” would EVER use either of the terms “THE Science” or “Settled Science”. The only things ACTUAL Scientists are certain about is that our disciplines are FULL of inconsistencies, probabilities, UNcertainties and incompletenesses. Every new observation, experiment, calculation or theory changes only the relative PROBABILITIES of competing theories being a better or worse APPROXIMATION to reality. This is as true for the physical sciences as it is for the bio-sciences.

    The terms “THE Science” or “Settled Science” are only used by politicians, theologians and charlatans masquerading as “scientists”.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Auntie Vaxina

    |

    Question the people behind the science.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via