To science bloggers living with mommy

To science bloggers living with mommy

by Jon Rappoport

August 25, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

These conventional science bloggers are really something. They’ve never met a published study extolling mainstream science they haven’t loved. I don’t know, maybe the studies somehow remind them of mommy and her warm basement where they still live at age 40 and do their important work.

A study praising a new drug? A study claiming a vaccine was “well tolerated?” A study claiming GMOs are perfectly safe? A study reporting the dire effects of manmade warming? They kiss it and try to make it better.

So here are a few statements they can chew on like week-old delivery pizza.

Warning: what follows could forever alter your view of published science.

We begin with quotes from two editors of prestigious science journals. These people have read, pawed over, analyzed, and dissected more science studies than 1000 bloggers taken together ever will.

One: Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

Two: Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Three: John PA Ioannidis, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, and Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, in PLoS Medicine, August 30, 2005, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”:

“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings [in all scientific fields] are false… a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller…when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias…There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”

Four: Back to Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet. In the same editorial quoted above, Horton makes reference to a recent symposium he attended at the Wellcome Trust in London. The subject of the meeting was the reliability of published biomedical research. His following quote carries additional force because he and other attendees were told to obey Chatham House rules—meaning no one would reveal who made any given comment during the conference.

Horton: “‘A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark [at the conference] because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in ‘purdah’—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations [biomedical science]”.


power outside the matrix


Conventional science bloggers, take notice. You’re working in a field where studies supporting the general consensus are tainted and stained.

Starting sentences with “the FDA approves” or “the CDC confirms” or “a study published in The New England Journal established” isn’t a ticket to the truth. Far from it.

You’re wading in a stench-ridden swamp, and you don’t know it; or you do know it and you don’t care, because you want to be part of the club; or someone is paying you to make absurd assertions. One way or another, you’re doomed if you follow the party line.

This is a much different landscape than you think it is. It’s a wholesale fabrication of what looks, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels like truth. But it isn’t. It’s a lying cartoon. It has vicious consequences.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

32 comments on “To science bloggers living with mommy

  1. sojourner says:

    Brilliant! Thank you for exposing this!

  2. mervyn says:

    That is what dogmatic materialistic science and their money worshipping backers want you to believe. Materialism is based on antiquated Aristotelian Logic.
    These arrogant dogmatists can’t explain why an airtight container of seeds on a balance scale when the moon is waning weigh more as the moon gets full.
    Where does the extra mass come from? Why do you get your best crop of sunflower plants when the seeds are planted when the sun is in Leo.
    With an open mind we know that the mineral is dead and the plant lives because the plant has a life force which obeys the laws of projective geometry,
    life forces coming from a periphery and intersecting and giving life to everything living.
    The Father God has thought all thoughts for eternity, Christ has given Life to these thoughts through Love and the Holy Spirit, through her Wisdom has given form to the
    Life.

    The four Gospels contain the most valuable knowledge obtainable concerning the occultism of healing. There is no document preserved to man from the past which has more of the mysteries of occult healing than the Gospels.
    Now the Bible as a whole consists of three parts : for the Revelation of St. John is as clearly distinct from the Gospels, as they are from the books of the Old Testament, As the Old Testament depicts the the preparation in earthly history for the Christ-event, and the Gospels the event itself, so the Apocalypse depicts the consequences resulting from that event. But the Apocalypse contains no history of the generations, such as the Old Testament contains, nor the delineation of the life and suffering of any single being, such as the Gospels give us. The Apocalypse depicts future human and cosmic events : it shows the cosmic results of the Incarnation of Christ. These results are not only of a spiritual and moral kind ; they partake of the character of Nature- happenings. The Apocalypse shows what influence spiritual and moral impulses will exercise in time to come upon the forces of Nature. Alterations in the strata of the Earth’s interior and in the etheric strata round the
    Earth, are accurately described in the Revelation of St. John as effects of moral causes The cosmic drama of the Apocalypse deals not only with the struggle which concerns Mankind, but also with the struggle which concerns Nature. It points to facts lying outside the regions of eugenic and hygienic occultism : for the effect of the humanly spiritual on the external Nature-forces is the theme of mechanical occultism. And the Apocalypse is the only authoritative document which preserves to man the knowledge contained in mechanical occultism.

    

    • MalteseX says:

      Ja, well, no – fine! 😎

    • Michael Burns says:

      @ The Mervster

      Wowser…I’m impressed, serious syntax there Merv.
      Mechanical occultism: eugenic and hygienic occultism:  projective geometry…zing, zang, kapowee, your good dude. You are good!
      Planting sunflowers in Leo…weighing seeds in a full moon. That got sparks going…but I must say the part that almost blew the top of my head of was “…they partake of the character of Nature- happenings.”
      Do you mind if I borrow that?
      That’s a keeper, , talk about phrases with zing; your metaphors are the best I have read in while.
      I bet you’ve been taking some University 400 level poetry, come on…pray tell, the truth now Mervyn.
      This is…*cough * …the best poem I have read…in…in a week.
      Can I make a suggestion though, I love how you start out with the intellectualism and move to the Aristotelian Logic, and then the slip into a dark madness, but say, close to the end I would imagine. Can we throw in a few phrases say with….gnashing teeth. I heard another fella use it, and it ramps up an ending.
      Roll it around your mouth a little bit …gnashing teeth, gnashing teeth, there will be gnashing teeth. It got zing right.
      You have a great imagination, awesome possum.
      You are definitely an artist… scary, but an artist.

      • MalteseX says:

        My thoughts exactly 😛

      • @MB

        Haha, I thought I’d wait for you.

        Ironically, Merv could not be more wrong with his “assessment” of folklore. They are not “predictions” for the future but, rather, revelations of a [mostly hidden] deep past as a warning to future generations.

        I am sure the Zionist front for chaos wants me to be a believer, but, you see, I know their “powers” are nothing more than tinker-toys when compared with the arsenals available in the big league.

        The most damaging thing to humanity, as Jon well knows, is POLUTION and that means industry is the great killer. Ho-hum no more TV’s, plastic bottles or anything else associated with “them”. Who’s gonna buy that; something that means guaranteed inconvenience, sacrifice and suffering? No one.

        But that’s the problem. We have to go through the cycle of pain for things to get better.

  3. Sherlock says:

    Ouch! I’m glad i’m not a science blogger. it would have been psychological uncomfortable to read this article. Richard Horton, Marcia Angell and John PA Ioannidis are basically saying “the systems has collapsed”. Well done Jon!

  4. middleway says:

    When the concept of pure science was corrupted by the mystical alchemy of kabbalah, fact was rendered fiction and reality became the ideal vehicle of anti-human intent.

  5. Greg Osborne says:

    Thank you, Jon, for summing this up in nice little, easy to read and digest chunks. Perfect for the dozen or so medicated-and-lovin’-it zombies that I am going to send it to.

  6. Patient Advocate says:

    Incorrect research results are harmful to patients’ health. Doctors should ask themselves if the extra recognition is so meaningful. It’s not.

  7. blakmira says:

    And don’t forget their worship of the results from animal testing (vivisection) — as if it were anything but hideously cruel, beyond inhumane, extremely misleading and completely unnecessary. They use animals purely for financial reasons — it’s cheaper & a great way to get the FDA to fast-track a drug. Plus the vivisectionists get a chance to play out their own sadistic versions of God (or the Devil, to be more accurate).

  8. Troy says:

    This is a great article and so . Thank you for revisiting this very important topic. I think what is happening with the younger, at least partially, is they often read an article and – lacking the skills to analyze data for themselves – look to to comment section to tell them what to think instead. This is where their (presumed) peers have already told them what to believe. Socially, they fit in. This problem is large because the internet is an extremely popular medium to share ideas and media. The social issue is also demonstrated in this XKCD comic, “First Post.” https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/first_post.png in which the casual reader becomes the victim of influence of whomever was able to post first. Those of us who are very confident in analyzing the information ourselves are still not immune to this internet blogosphere phenomenon.

  9. One way to spot a science blogger living with mommy is to notice the word “CURE”. There is very little, if any, research looking for cures. It’s much more lucrative to search for ‘treatments’ and sign patients up to an ongoing subscription. Cures are, by definition, low sellers. If a science blogger (or a newspaper headline, for that matter) uses the word CURE, they probably haven’t even read the flawed research..
    to your health, tracy

  10. caduceusxx says:

    I’m not at all surprised at the above and I’m pleased that it’s disclosed, although I don’t usually blog on medical science, I stick to the other sciences – much less emotional. Like the fact that physics has done nothing of use to man/womankind since the 1930’s. I wrote to a US online professor of physicist about this very subject and he informed me that it was “the application of physics that I should be criticising”? He is totally unaware that there is nothing to apply, his time completely taken with musing useless metaphysical theory. But then again, the Internet was invented on the Internet by a CERN Cathedral contractor who had a physics degree that he never used. But we plebs are not scientifically educated and as such unqualified to peer review the emperors new clothes.

    Another example of cloaked incompetence is geology: I doubt that many geologists are even aware that the science of seismology was completely wiped-out when several super-deep holes were bored across the globe. The results showed that all the preceding seismology at the sites was wrong, not just a few pardonable errors, but in every single thing predicted – all wrong. Nothing at all is known about the interior of the earth beyond the depth of the deepest mine and geologists tell us about the core. They confidently teach plate tectonics to students with not a shred of evidence. There should have been major corrections to all the textbooks, but it was all ignored and forgotten. Do we stick to our science or update our science with scientific results? Sod it, let’s leave well alone! This is the scientific method – BS.

    Unfortunately there are an increasing number who don’t believe anything unless it is from the keyboard or TV program of a PhD or a professional sceptic – Randi?. Scepticism is the macho thing to wear these days, I’m told it has something to do with education.😉
    caduseusxx

  11. wanttobegalt says:

    Great article Jon. The gov’t science meme exists. In today’s world you must be able to identify it. Sociopathic politicians, Sociopathic scientists, Sociopathic lobbyists and Sociopathic crony corporatists all acting in their own individual self-interest perpetuate the gov’t science meme. The gov’t science meme attempts to create, declare, disseminate, dominate and control the information on many subjects. Catastrophic AGW is one gov’t science meme. You can easily discern the gov’t science meme to be present in several worse than worthless gov’t causes.
    For example; You know the gov’t science behind climate warming is garbage. You know the gov’t science behind the sustainability of public employee pensions is garbage. You know the gov’t science behind windmill farms is garbage. You know the gov’t science behind bio fuels is garbage. Look at the history of the USDA food pyramid to see bad gov’t science. Read up how gov’t science pushed trans fatty acids into our diet. You know the gov’t science that says we can have Quantitative easing without causing asset bubbles and robbing savers is garbage. And if you look you will see that the gov’t science behind vaccinations is garbage.You know you could add to this list of Totalitarian Science examples.

  12. The problem goes much deeper than this, Jon. (as hard as that might be to rationalise).

    I spell it out in my latest Exopolitician post:

    “Science, to a large degree, has travelled the same path and, frankly, suffered the same fate of crusades built on false positives against redundant standards. This is not to say there have been no achievements. Quite the reverse; achievements has been numerous and far reaching. However, the successes are also always limited. Few have seriously considered what Isaac Newton meant by (words to the effect) “everything that can be measured exists”. The emphasis should be on “can be measured” as it refers to the reality bubble we call perception. Even this is a presumption. Everyone might not perceive things identically. In fact, there is no “might”. Clairvoyance, clairaudience and clairsentience abilities separate the human group into those that have extra-sensory perception and those that don’t….”

    Rest here https://exopolitician.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/archangels-and-mere-mortals-ixossana-zamolxis-and-jesus/

    An old Ozzie Thinker post questions measurement standards that may be sheer guesswork and makes some other apt comments:

    https://ozziethinker.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/is-science-illusory/

    Best
    OT

  13. Michael Burns says:

    Well done Jon
    …the problem is the studies that are real. Or are there any that are real ? Can we trust any scientific study? Is it all simply a battlefield of dueling propagandas.
    Has it become an us against them scenario. Who can tell the biggest lies? Controlled opposition again?

    • jacobite2015 says:

      That’s an excellent point!

      I find this very confusing as many studies published in medical journals show many classes of medications can and do cause serious problems. For example; NSAIDs, anticoagulants, immosuppressants, can cause serious side-effects, (e.g., organ failure, GI bleeds, CV damage). These are published in reputable journals (e.g., Journals of Nephrology, Gastroenterology, Hematology, etc.), and I don’t think these particular studies would have any funding from the pharma companies? (I doubt they would want their footprint on a negative drug analysis).

      Therefore, I hope these particular studies would be considered valid (even by Dr. Angell’s standards?), as they reveal how damaging medical drugs can be, and how our friendly, lovable physicians seem to be silent witnesses to this.

  14. jacobite2015 says:

    Thank you Jon for the great information. I try to memorize some of the quotes from the journal editors you’ve highlighted for future reference.

    One note on those holier-than-thou science blogs that seem to be increasing in popularity (e.g., Respectful Insolence-“King Orac”). On occasion I like to “peek-in” and be entertained with some of their postings on controversial subjects, particularly topics on vaccines and pharmaceuticals. Posters have, in fact, mentioned the quote from some of the journal editors you’re referenced. The regulars (“self-proclaimed superior intellects” in the field of scientific research & medicine) have dismissed, criticized and mocked these experts. Some have even implied that their quotes are being used out of context!

    I would imagine if Dr. Angell herself appeared on their blog, there would no hesitation in mounting a vicious and inflammatory attack on her! These regulars present such a grandiose attitude on their sanctimonious belief of scientific research that no opposing view is creditable. They will demean, intimidate and insult anybody that dares to challenge the ad nauseam “the science is settled” montra on many issues, especially vaccines. And of course, they will effortlessly try to Impress everyone witn their pretentious use of the English language.

    Since these “regulars” post constantly 24/7, they either have no lives or, as I strongly suspect, they’re paid pharma shills. Perhaps they’re unemployed/underemployed scientists, retired medical professionals, school science teachers, etc., all looking to make an extra buck or two, compliments of Big Pharma. And if your a sub-trillion juggernaut like Big Pharma is, compensating these mind-controlled people to further your agenda is “chump change” and something easy to facilitate.

    Nevertheless, it’s quite entertaining if you have nothing better to do…

  15. jarrodschneider says:

    A nice overview of the way that mainstream science proceeds according to principles such as groupthink, cognitive dissonance, collectivism etc. can be found in the work of Thomas S. Kuhn. His model of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” explains how scientists exhibit unquestioning acceptance of the mainstream scientific paradigm, even when faced with anomalous experiential results that conflict with the dominant narrative. In fact, these anomalies tend to be either explained away as errors in judgment/equipment/procedure, or flat-out ignored.

    You see, mainstream science is basically a type of puzzle solving, because at any given time through history, no matter how successful the consensus scientific paradigm was/is, it will always encounter phenomenon it cannot easily account for, mismatches between the dominant theories’ predictions and the actual experiential results, etc. The job of the mainstream scientist therefore, is to try and eliminate these minor puzzles while making as few changes as possible to the overall paradigm.

    So mainstream science is actually a highly conservative activity; no one is trying to rock the boat, or make any ground breaking new discoveries; rather, they are simply trying to uphold and extend the current mainstream scientific matrix. Most importantly, Kuhn stresses that mainstream scientists are not trying to TEST the paradigm, on the contrary, they accept the paradigm UNQUESTIONINGLY, and conduct their research only within the boundaries the paradigm sets. Take this tendency to adhere to the collective conception of scientific reality, and pair it with the control of funding and other issues raised in this article, and you get the monstrous menace that is modern scientism, an increasingly destructive way of viewing (and acting in) the world that is just as dogmatic as any other religion.

    A short and sweet synopsis of Kuhn’s work can be found here:

    • Troy says:

      great comment

    • Agreed and the great “scientist” Dawkins has had the front to insist the roadmap /plan of objective conclusions trump the data (evidence), i.e. we accept all positives as validators of “truth” and all negatives must [by the same reasoning] be incorrect [treated as anomalies until “disproven”).

      It is not restricted to “science”. Hearsay is predominantly used as “basis” by the justice system (sic).

  16. henry says:

    It is a well know scientific fact that the Atlantic Ocean evaporates more water than it receives in rain fall. This precipitation deficit problem will eventually lead to many other problems if we don’t spend the money to study and correct the problem. Those hungry Africans will walk right into your neighborhood and get on welfare. And what are you going to do when those hungry lions start eating your babies?

    Note: By dumbing down the American population so that they cannot think for themselves, and polishing the propaganda machine, those in control may get the American people to fall for ideas a stupid as this.

    • wanttobegalt says:

      Disagree. This is true of all oceans. But rivers flow into oceans. No water disappears nor is lost.. The total amount of precipitation that falls is equal to the amount that evaporated.

      • Sha'Tara says:

        Well, I’m pretty sure it was meant as a joke, but that aside, we still have to deal with entropy.

        • Yes I think he was being sarcastic,

          But I think it highlights the problem with science in general. All those grand statements backed (often) by the flimsiest piece of evidence or smallest data sample offered as statements of fundamental truth. Just like the Bible……!

          Moses you rock (more of that sarcasm again)!

          • MalteseX says:

            Have ever studied – I mean, studied – the Bible? I have, at length; therefore, I found your statement to be unworthy […]. Please do not confuse it’s content with religion. Poles apart, the two are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s