Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 16, 2021 - Jim Fetzer

01:12:09

SCIENCE SAYS - The Corbett Report

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning, children.
	Mr. Corbett here.
	Everyone, take your seat.
	Are you prepared for today's lesson?
	Today is April 9th, 2021.
	9th, 2021. And this is lesson number 398, Science Says.
	Okay children, are you all ready?
	Okay, take your seat.
	Now, let's play today's game.
	Let's play Science Says!
	Yay!
	Okay, are you ready?
	Science says, don't wear a mask!
	Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.
	You're sure of it, because people are listening really closely to this.
	Right now people should not be walking, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask.
	Good.
	Now, science says wear a mask.
	That's the reason why some time ago the recommendation was made, I believe it was Dr. Redfield at the CDC who first said that, about getting some sort of a covering.
	We don't want to call it a mask because back then we were concerned we'd be taking masks Away from the healthcare providers.
	But some sort of mask-like facial covering, I think for the time being, should be a very regular part of how we prevent the spread of infection.
	Johnny?
	Oh, you didn't wear your mask.
	Uh-oh, you're out.
	Sit down.
	Okay, next.
	Science says wear two masks.
	But if you wanna really be sure, get a tighter fit with the second mask.
	Wait a minute, are you a double masker, Dr. Fauci?
	You look like you are.
	Well, I have.
	In fact, I have used it occasionally, mostly, Savannah, for what the CDC is saying.
	The fit is better.
	If you get the surgical mask on and you put a cloth mask over, those areas around where some aerosol can get in are better fitting.
	Jenny, are you wearing three masks?
	I'll accept that answer.
	Oh, but little Darcy, sorry.
	You're not wearing two masks.
	You're gonna have to sit down.
	Alright.
	Okay, everybody.
	Now, take your mask off and breathe natural fresh air.
	Ha ha!
	Gotcha!
	I didn't say science says!
	Get off of me! Get off of me!
	Put your hand behind your back!
	I will not put my hand behind my back! I'm not currently doing nothing wrong!
	You want to see the bonus of it?
	AHHHHH!
	Wow!
	Taste somebody over a mask!
	I'm so cold!
	Tase this lady over not wearing a damn mask.
	Oh, that's right.
	This isn't a game.
	No, there is no Science Says, but your would-be, unaccountable, unelected health overlords would sure love you to believe that this is a game.
	Or, at any rate, that these are rules, and that you must comply whenever they say the magic words, Science Says.
	But for anyone who has mindlessly repeated those words in the past, science says, when referring to a study that they think makes a point that they want to stress, or, more likely, are referring to a pop-sci blog which is characterizing a study that they haven't even bothered to read, that they think is affirming something that they themselves believe, well then, congratulations!
	You have successfully internalized the psychological operation to control your mind by your would-be overlords.
	And this is something that I have been through in many different forms in my work over the years.
	So I'm going to refer you to a number of those reports from which you can connect all of these dots together.
	Most notably and most applicably, perhaps, my episode on the crisis of science and the follow-up episode on Solutions Open Science, my work on the sugar conspiracy, for example, my work on Rockefeller medicine, and Obviously, naturally, my work on the unfalsifiable woo-woo pseudoscience of climate change, which I have noted many times in the past, is a secular religion, and I am not alone in making that observation, by the way.
	I was just re-listening to an old debate between Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens's brother.
	Back in 2008, I believe, and Christopher Hitchens, when cornered by Peter on the subject, was forced to admit that he did see, and in fact made in some degree of detail, the observation about the religion of climate change and how it functions in that mindset for a lot of people in the general public.
	This is not a novel observation, but it is an important one, and one I will continue to stress because, in case anyone wondered why on earth I have, over the years, stressed such points when, but James, science says blah blah blah.
	Well, no.
	Science does not say anything.
	It is not a person.
	It does not speak.
	It does not issue dictats.
	It cannot fundamentally bridge the is-ought gap.
	Amongst many other philosophical problems with such a game that we will get into momentarily.
	But first, I want to stress that what is happening here is not a joke.
	It is not a game.
	It is exceptionally important.
	It is part of a process of the weaponization of science that I called attention to under that title specifically back in 2017, more on which later.
	But for all of those who have had their head buried in the sand on this particular issue, well, you are starting to see the incredible relevance of it to your daily life.
	As you mask up to go to the store and stay six feet apart, and roll up your sleeve for the experimental medical interventions that are being forced upon the population, or that the population is being manipulatively coerced into receiving, you are starting to see what This game is really leading to, and the conditions for the intellectual environment that has been created over recent years, where unappointed and unelected would-be health authorities are now dictating reality to you, and if you question any of their pronouncements,
	Or even any of the ways in which they are suggesting that you go about protecting your health, then you are now not just an anti-science heathen, but an actual extremist who is posing a danger to human society and must be dealt with.
	Do you think I am joking about that characterization?
	Well, Let's take a look.
	In fact, I can very specifically point to something in recent weeks which should send a chill down the spine of anyone paying attention.
	We're going to turn to the pages of Scientific American.
	What could be more apolitical than Scientific American?
	Am I right, guys?
	Well, here we are on the Scientific American page, or more accurately, on Archive today.
	Of course, I am not going to send the link or the traffic.
	To Scientific American, but this will obviously be linked up in the show notes so you can go and read it for yourself.
	This is an opinion piece written by Peter J. Hotez, which is a name that should be familiar to my listeners for reasons that will become apparent.
	But at any rate, the headline for this opinion piece, the anti-science movement is escalating, going global, and killing thousands.
	And the subhead here, rejection of mainstream science and medicine has become a key feature of the political right in the U.S.
	and increasingly around the world.
	So I think you get a flavor of where this is heading, but let's delve into this because it really, it really does deserve to be taken seriously as a serious threat.
	But before we actually delve into the text itself, I just have to parenthetically note the recommended reading on the sidebar of Scientific American, and I note this with some degree of chagrin as a previous subscriber to Scientific American a couple of decades ago, back when I was in university and wanted to be well-read on the latest developments in science.
	And at that time, in my defense, I don't think Scientific American was nearly as political, as overtly political, as it is now, following whatever political trends Are going through society.
	At least not to this extent.
	And as my example of this, I will just point you to this.
	Look at this.
	Read this next.
	The recommended reading here on the sidebar.
	Microaggressions.
	Death by a thousand cuts.
	Which COVID vaccine is best?
	And why do some people have side effects?
	Experts answer these questions and more.
	First, openly transgender top US official is set to tackle inequity.
	Onward, Intrepid Rover!
	Well, there's something that may actually be scientific in nature.
	Racial disparities have been found in screening for postpartum mood disorders.
	And when will kids get COVID vaccines?
	Yeah, that's the question we're all asking, isn't it?
	When will kids get COVID vaccines?
	So as you see, I mean, just even from this list, so much of what they are pushing their readers to read these days is overtly political in nature.
	And more about the political aspects of science than science proper.
	But at any rate, let's delve into Peter J. Hotez's opinion piece here and see what he has to say.
	For example, he starts by saying, Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
	Terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
	We must mount a counter-offensive and build new infrastructure to combat anti-science just as we have for these other more widely recognized and established threats.
	Listen to what he is actually saying here.
	Do not allide over this passage.
	This is incredibly Chilling stuff.
	He is outright saying that this anti-science highly lethal force that is emerging is equivalent to terrorism and nuclear proliferation as an existential threat to humanity or at least a national security threat and needs a counter-offensive needs to be mounted to meet that threat in a similar way.
	So, yes, the apparatus of the anti-terror state that was erected over the first couple of decades of this century are now going to be wheeled against anyone who, what, questions Dr. Fauci?
	Is this where things are going?
	Well, if we read them literally, and if we take their words at face value, this is exactly what people like Peter J. Hotez And it gets worse.
	He goes on to say, anti-science is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods,
	or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories, often for nefarious and
	political gains.
	And if you read through that mealy-mouthed rhetoric there, you will see that he is suggesting
	that even someone who simply forwards an unproven theory that is not part of mainstream acceptable
	scientific consensus, as I suppose evidenced by the institutions that safeguard and gatekeep
	the scientific discourse.
	Then you are part of this anti-science threat that needs to be dealt with as a terrorist extremist, or a threat on the scale of nuclear proliferation.
	Of course, there's deliberately misleading theories that are often for nefarious and political gains, but he is including in that anyone who forwards any sort of unproven theory.
	So, presumably, almost every scientist who has ever practiced in the field of science who has, at any point, Come up with a novel experimental result could theoretically fall under this exceptionally large umbrella that Peter Hotez is putting over this subject.
	So keep that in mind, and keep in mind how broad a brush he is painting with.
	There, if you actually look through the rhetoric itself, but then he goes on to say, it, anti-science, targets prominent scientists and attempts to discredit them.
	Again, you have to, I cannot fathom how any, anyone who proclaims to be a scientist could write something like this with a straight face.
	So apparently attempting to discredit Something that another scientist is holding up as their truth, science says, is now an anti-science threat.
	But that is the very definition of the scientific process.
	That is by definition what scientists do.
	They are attempting to chart new territories, discredit old ideas,
	forward unproven theories that can then be experimentally verified or falsified. That is the very
	essence of science. But apparently, no, no, no, no, no, no, there is an established body of consensus to which
	any challenge is a threat on the scale of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
	Read what he is actually saying here.
	This is bone-chilling type of rhetoric.
	He goes on to say the destructive potential of anti-science was fully realized in the USSR under Joseph Stalin.
	Millions of Russian peasants died from starvation and famine during the 1930s and 1940s because Stalin embraced The pseudoscientific views of Trofim Lysenko that promoted catastrophic wheat and other harvest failures.
	Soviet scientists who did not share Lysenko's vernalization theories lost their positions, or, like the plant geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, starved to death in a gulag.
	And I will just note parenthetically, here we go again with the gulag reference.
	That's been popping up for me personally a lot lately, and as you might know, I did write about our digital gulag lately.
	Bringing up the specter of the Gulag Archipelago that we're stepping into with the digital prison that's being erected around us.
	But here's another reference to the Gulags talking about Lysenkoism, which students of scientific history will probably have heard about at some point, and it is the paradigmatic example of The suppression of science by political authorities for political purposes.
	So in this case, of course, Lysenko and his now discredited theories were being pushed to buy Stalin because they were in accord with the ideas and ideals of the Soviet Communist Party.
	Well, this is communist science.
	This is better than that other trash science and all challengers to Lysenkoism will be destroyed.
	And quite literally starve to death in a gulag, if need be.
	But the incredible, the unfathomable thing to me in Peter J. Hotez bringing up that particular idea in the context of this science versus anti-science debate that he's trying to frame here, is that he does not, as the old child adage has it, does not realize that when you're pointing one finger out, you're pointing three back at yourself.
	How could he expect that his audience is stupid enough to not see that the Lysenkoism analogy that he's trying to draw here absolutely points back at this scientific consensus establishment of institutions like the WHO that he is attempting to hold up as the great example of science versus the political authorities that are suppressing Any challengers to their pseudo-scientific woo-woo?
	No, no, no.
	But look at that analogy.
	In this case, we have the scientific establishment being backed by the political authorities.
	Obviously, in this case, we have the Biden administration.
	Whatever you say, Dr. Fauci.
	Just as Trump, by the way, largely did also do the same thing.
	I don't think this is a left-right political issue.
	Please see more about precedent to Trump and My recent episode on Biden's secret plans for more on that elaboration on that.
	But no, this is not a political thing.
	The entire political apparatus of the US and virtually every country around the world, all signatories to the WHO, are going along with this equally and vigorously suppressing any and all scientific dissent to whatever happens to be the consensus of the moment, even when it later turns out to be wrong.
	And there are any number of examples that we can point to of that in recent months.
	Over the past year, there have been so many different examples of studies about the dangers
	of hydroxychloroquine being retracted later on, but in that time period when that was
	the scientific consensus, because look, it was in a peer-reviewed paper, any and all
	attempts to go against that were ruthlessly suppressed, censored off of the internet.
	Doctors have had their credentials stripped, scientists have been dragged through the mud, deplatformed in numerous ways for suggesting that there are problems with what is going on right now.
	So, raising the specter of Lysenkoism and the idea that the political authorities are suppressing any challengers to their pseudoscience, I would hope that Hotez doesn't really believe that his audience is stupid enough not to realize that he is making that analogy in exactly the way that it implicates him and his cronies in the scientific establishment, but somehow I think he does believe that you are that stupid.
	Luckily, we are not, so we can see through such rhetoric.
	And he goes on to talk about now anti-science is causing mass deaths once again in this COVID-19 pandemic, beginning in the spring of 2020.
	The Trump White House launched a coordinated disinformation campaign that dismissed the severity of the epidemic in the United States and attributed COVID deaths to other causes.
	Oh, that's just unbelievable.
	Claimed hospital admissions were due to a catch-up in elective surgeries and asserted that ultimately that the epidemic would spontaneously evaporate.
	It also promoted hydroxychloroquine as a spectacular cure.
	There we go.
	While downplaying the importance of masks.
	More on which in a moment, by the way.
	But let's just put a little highlight on that, the importance of masks.
	Other authoritarian or populist regimes in Brazil, Mexico, Nicaragua, Philippines, and Tanzania adopted some or all of these elements.
	Oh, here we go, the spreading of the anti-scientific message.
	Starting, of course, in the Trump White House.
	Because it's all Trump's fault at base.
	And more to the point, as he goes on to elaborate here, it's a Republican thing.
	It's completely presented here in the context of left-right and in the American political context specifically, but anyway.
	As both a vaccine scientist and a parent of an adult daughter with autism and intellectual disabilities, I have years of experience growing up against the anti-vaccine lobby, which claims vaccines cause autism or other chronic conditions.
	This prepared me to quickly recognize the outrageous claims made by members of the Trump White House staff, and to connect the dots to label them as anti-science disinformation.
	Despite my best efforts to sound the alarm and call it out, the anti-science disinformation created mass havoc in the red states.
	In the red states, of course.
	Because the blue states are doing A-OK!
	New York, California, just riding high!
	Woo!
	Again, writing this, I cannot imagine him writing this with a straight face.
	I honestly believe he thinks that his audience is this stupid.
	During the summer of 2020, and maybe because, well anyway, during the summer of 2020, COVID-19 accelerated in states of the South as governors prematurely lifted restrictions to create a second and unnecessary wave of COVID-19 cases and deaths.
	Again, please, please put highlights on all of this, because he is making attributional claims here that there is some sort of proven connection between, for example, lifting of restrictions and rises in cases and deaths, which is actually a scientific claim, which he is not.
	Backing up with any science here.
	I mean, it's just an opinion piece anyways, so I guess he doesn't isn't obligated to actually back anything He's saying up with science while he's making these claims about anti-scientism Then following a large motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota a third surge unfolded in the fall in the upper Midwest Exactly this thing happened and then this thing happened therefore this thing happened because this thing happened That's perfectly logical totally valid reasoning right guys.
	Oh wait hmm there may be problems with that and Given that that is an attributional claim, maybe you actually have to have some science behind that, and maybe you might have to back that up with something beyond simply saying, look, this happened, and then this happened.
	Did that really happen?
	Oh, don't question that!
	Anyway.
	A hallmark of both waves were thousands of individuals who tied their identity and political allegiance on the right to defying masks and social distancing.
	Nadir was a highly publicized ICU nurse who wept as she recounted the dying words of one of her patients who insisted COVID-19 was a hoax.
	So of course, going back to the emotional heartstrings, which of course is the basis that they continue to go back to because this is totally about the science and not anecdata, right guys?
	Now, a new test of defiance and simultaneous allegiance to the Republican Party has emerged in the form of resisting COVID-19 vaccines.
	At least three surveys from the Kaiser Family Foundation, our study published in the journal Social Science and Medicine, and the PBS NewsHour NPR Marist Poll each point to Republicans, or white Republicans, as a top vaccine-resistant group in America.
	So, I guess white Republicans who have questions about the vaccine are now anti-science enemies who are on par with terrorists and nuclear proliferation is a national security threat.
	At least one in four Republican House members will refuse COVID-19 vaccines.
	Once again, we should anticipate that many of these individuals could lose their lives from COVID-19 in the coming months.
	Historically, anti-science was not a major element of the Republican Party.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	National Academy of Sciences.
	So it now goes through the institutions that were founded back in the days when politics was less blatantly partisan and people could hold hands and sing kumbaya around these scientific institutions that were being founded by Republicans.
	But now...
	Blah blah blah, I traced the adoption of anti-science as a major platform of the GOP to the year 2015 when the anti-vaccine movement pivoted to political extremism on the right.
	It first began in Southern California when a measles epidemic erupted following widespread vaccine exemptions.
	The California legislature shut down these exemptions to protect the public health, but this ignited a health freedom rallying cry.
	Your body, your choice?
	I don't think so, plebs.
	Health freedom then gained strength.
	And accelerated in Texas where it formed a political action committee linked to the Tea Party.
	Protests against vaccines became a major platform of the Tea Party.
	This then generalized in 2020 to defy masks and social distancing.
	So he's painting this picture where everything's going along tickety-boo beautifully until for some reason just out of the, you know, that deep red state of Southern California where you have those dyed-in-the-wool Republicans Who, for some reason, started to want to exempt themselves from vaccination.
	And then there's this measles epidemic which killed millions of people.
	Oh wait, and there might be problems with that narrative anyway.
	And somehow that metastasized through a political action committee connected to the Tea Party into social mask... social distance defiance and non-mask wearing.
	I mean, this is just... Who could possibly argue with this narrative, right guys?
	Anyway, then it goes into American Institute of Economic Research, the Great Barrington Declaration, Scott Atlas, you know, these doctors, these scientists who say things that I don't approve of are the anti-science threat, case example.
	So here, might as well, Peter J. Hotez is Lysenko in this analogy.
	And the political establishment that has his back is the Soviets.
	It is Stalin who is attempting to suppress Scott Atlas and anyone else who questions in any way any part of this narrative.
	Anyway, then it goes on, full anti-science agenda of the Republican Party.
	We are approaching 3 million deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic.
	Citation needed?
	Oh wait, he goes on to say, it is increasingly apparent that the SARS-CoV-2 alone is not responsible.
	Yeah, yeah, I think that's true, but obviously not in the way he means it.
	No, he's saying it's because of these damn Anti-science people who aren't wearing their masks, which is the magical talisman that will protect us from the invisible boogeyman, Ooga Booga.
	Oh, you're not wearing your mask properly.
	I'm losing my mind.
	It's because of you.
	You're the reason that people are dying on this planet.
	And if you just wore a mask, no one would die ever again.
	This is the level at which they are attempting to communicate with the public right now.
	And it just, unfortunately, again, if this was just The sort of, oh, the halcyon days of 2015, when it was just people like Peter J. Hotez raging into the wind about these anti-science people who care about their own health and protecting their bodily autonomy and other such nonsense.
	If it was only those days, that would be fine, but it obviously isn't.
	As he goes on to say, containing anti-science, containing anti-science, will, as anti-science Asterisk, as defined by Peter J. Hotez, will require work and an interdisciplinary approach.
	For innovative and comprehensive solutions, we might look at interagency task forces in the U.S.
	government or among the agencies of the United Nations, given the role of state actors such as Russia.
	Again, citation?
	Nah, let's just say it.
	It's fine, good enough.
	Everyone knows that to be the case now anyway, right?
	Or at least, Peter J. Hotez's intendant audience.
	And anti-vaccine organizations that monetize the internet.
	Again, the way they can make absolutely anything sound so ominous is incredible.
	We should anticipate that any counteroffensive could be complex and multifaceted.
	The stakes are high given the high death toll that is already accelerating from the one-two punch of SARS-CoV-2 and anti-science.
	We are fighting two invisible boogeyman comrades.
	We must be prepared to implement a sophisticated infrastructure to counteract this.
	A wrecked digital gulag to contain... I mean, similar to what we now already have done for more
	established global threats.
	Anti-science is now a large and formidable security issue.
	Let me reread that for the heart of thinking.
	Anti-science is now a large and formidable security issue.
	Yes, they are framing this in the exact same terms that they were framing the War of Terror of the past couple of decades.
	It is now explicitly a war on anyone who will question anything being told to them by any presumed self-appointed would-be health authority.
	And anyone who does not see the grave danger that is being presented here is not taking this seriously.
	Unfortunately, at their own risk, they are dismissing these words.
	These are not idle words.
	Yes, Peter J. Hotez is not personally going to be able to implement this agenda, but he is speaking for an establishment that does have the power.
	To implement this very agenda.
	Anyone who is not in compliance with the dictates of whatever scientific institution is holding sway over the political apparatus at any given time is going to be deemed a threat and is going to be dealt with.
	This is not a scientific debate.
	As Hotez explicitly makes clear in that opinion piece where he says that absolutely anyone forwarding any unproven theory that goes outside of the bounds of the mainstream However that is defined, which of course he doesn't bother to even attempt to define, is a threat, is part of this anti-scientific threat, and will be dealt with, presumably, in the same way, as a national security threat.
	Then we'll have to get the United Nations involved to deal with this international, this global threat to human safety.
	This is not about the science.
	This is now about compliance.
	And if you do not comply with these dictates, they will take away your basic human rights.
	You are now a hostage being held by this suddenly, out of nowhere, where did this come from?
	This new scientific priest class.
	And they're not even hiding it anymore.
	They are explicitly saying this in their own words.
	My main concern is that we're not going to reach herd immunity because of vaccine hesitancy.
	And I know that's hard for a lot of people to believe who desperately want the vaccine right now.
	And they're thinking, oh, well, it's just a small percentage of people who are actually anti-vaxxers.
	And that's true.
	There is the anti-science, anti-vaxxer contingent.
	But I think that there are many more people, millions of people who, for whatever reason, have concerns about the vaccine, who just don't know what's in it for them.
	And we need to make it clear to them that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-pandemic life.
	And the window to do that is really narrowing.
	I mean, you were mentioning, Chris, about how all these states are reopening.
	They're reopening at 100 percent.
	And we have a very narrow window to tie reopening policy to vaccination status.
	Because otherwise, if everything is reopened, then what's the carrot going to be?
	How are we going to incentivize people to actually get the vaccine?
	So that's why I think the CDC and the Biden administration needs to come out a lot bolder and say, if you're vaccinated, you can do all these things.
	Here are all these freedoms that you have.
	Because otherwise, people are going to go out and enjoy these freedoms anyway.
	Do you hear what Dr. Wen is saying here?
	I mean, do you really hear it?
	Don't gloss over it.
	This is important stuff, and what she is saying and the way she is saying it is important.
	She is presuming that the government has your rights and freedoms and will dole them out to you if and when you comply with the demands of the government-approved health authorities.
	And that's the way this works.
	Do not engage in scientific argument.
	Do not engage in rational discussion.
	Do not listen to anyone proclaiming, my body, my choice.
	It is our body, our choice.
	We will tell you what you have to do in order to be allowed to participate in society.
	What was that?
	Social credit scores being tied to vaccination ID, which will be tied to biometric ID, which will also be tied to your coming central bank digital currency.
	What's this happening?
	Oh, don't worry about it.
	We will allow you to participate in society when you take our experimental medical intervention.
	This is insanity, but it is a chilling insanity because this Dr. Lina Nguyen is not some crank out on the street corner talking into some megaphone on a public speaker's corner.
	No, this is CNN!
	And why do they have her on?
	Who is she anyway?
	Where did she come from?
	Where does she presume to be lecturing the U.S.
	government about what it should be doing to use this Christ-a-tunity to lock people in their homes until they comply with the demands of the health authorities anyway?
	Well, as CNN, as the Chiron helpfully tells us, well, she's some sort of ER physician, a former health commissioner of Baltimore, some professor of public health policy at GWU.
	Well, we can find more information about Dr. Lena Wen and her background at her public profile on the World Economic Forum page, where it helpfully tells us that Dr. Lena Wen is an emergency physician and visiting professor of health policy and management at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
	She's also a contributing columnist for the Washington Bezos CIA Post, writing on health policy and public health.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Frequent guest commentator on CNN, BBC, MSNBC, National Public Radio, blah, blah, blah.
	Health commissioner for the city of Baltimore, where she led the nation's oldest continuously operating health department in the U.S.
	to fight the opioid epidemic.
	Epidemic.
	Well, good job there.
	Treat violence and racism as public health issues and improve maternal and child health.
	She's also served as President-CEO of Planned Parenthood, where she worked to reposition the organization as a mainstream healthcare entity that delivers comprehensive care for women and families.
	And, uh, Director of Patient-Centered Care Research, Department of Emergency Medicine, blah blah blah, Consultant with the World Health Organization, the Brookings Institution, and the China Medical Board?
	Dr. Nguyen earned her degree from Washington University School of Medicine and her master's at the University of Oxford, where she was a Rhodes Scholar.
	Completed residency training, dozens of scientific articles, blah blah blah, TEDxTalks, TEDmedTalks, she's received recognition, Modern Healthcare's 50 Most Influential Physician Executives, blah blah blah, Governing's Public Officials of the Year, and World Economic Forum's Young Globalist Leaders, In 2019, Dr. Wen was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People.
	Oh, I see.
	So, basically, she has a winning bingo card for the globalist Jet Set Bingo, part of the Rothkopf-defined superclass there, and clearly someone with...
	Who isn't just ranting on a street corner into a megaphone?
	No, she really does have the ear of many rich and influential people, as her position obviously is a mouthpiece for very influential agendas, and they're not hiding it!
	They're not...
	They're not trying to be coy about this.
	Once again, the open conspiracy.
	No, they are saying this is a crisis and we have to use this crisis as a leverage point and lock people in their homes and not allow them to participate in public life until they receive this medical intervention.
	And do you think that this reasoning is going to stop here?
	Oh yes, of course.
	We had the big COVID-19 pandemic.
	It was terrible.
	It ravaged the world.
	But we got through it by the skin of our teeth and implemented all of this infrastructure for mandating that everyone be subjected to forced experimental medical interventions at the drop of a hat any time public health officials say so.
	But it was never used again.
	No, no, no, no.
	It was just during that horrible pandemic and then that was over.
	For the next century, there was never a sign of such a thing being used ever again.
	No, of course, this is precedent-setting time, and they're trying to set the precedent that if you are in any way opposed to any of this, even on philosophical grounds, let alone genuine concern for your own health, then you are anti-science, and you are a threat On the level of a domestic terrorist extremist and or nuclear proliferation.
	Why not?
	Just throw out anything that sounds scary because that's what you are.
	So this isn't, again, this is not some random person saying this.
	This is the esteemed Dr. Lena Nguyen saying it.
	And that raises the question, who is this Peter J. Hotez who wrote that Scientific American Opinion piece anyway?
	I'm sure I've heard of his name before.
	Because one of the things that we're not hearing a lot about is the unique potential safety problem of coronavirus vaccines.
	This was first found in the early 1960s with the respiratory syncytial virus vaccines, and it was done here in Washington with the NIH and Children's National Medical Center, that some of those kids who got the vaccine actually did worse, and I believe there were two deaths in the consequence of that study.
	Because what happens With certain types of respiratory virus vaccines, you get immunized, and then when you get actually exposed to the virus, you get this kind of paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon.
	And we don't entirely understand the basis of it, but we recognize that it's a real problem for certain respiratory virus vaccines.
	Oh, that's right.
	Now the Gates Foundation is taking it up again.
	But when we started developing coronavirus vaccines and our colleagues, we noticed in laboratory animals
	that they started to show some of the same immune pathology that resembled what had happened 50 years earlier.
	Oh, that's right.
	That Peter J. Hotez.
	Yeah, you'll recall that clip from Bill Gates' plan to vaccinate the world.
	But if your only exposure to Peter J. Hotez was that particular clip, you will be forgiven for thinking that, oh, here's this insider vaccine researcher who's blowing the whistle on the potential dangers of coronavirus vaccines.
	Well...
	In a sense, yes, but if you watch the fuller context of that full testimony, and as always,
	I will throw the link into the full testimony into the show notes so you can go and watch
	it for yourself, but you'll see, yes, Hotez is blowing the whistle, in a sense, on the
	potential dangers, the potential immune enhancement phenomenon that he's describing here for people
	who are vaccinated, well, in this case lab rats, that are vaccinated and then subjected
	to the wild strains of a virus.
	Well, that could actually increase and enhance the phenomenon, so it actually makes it worse.
	But his fuller testimony is saying, well, we were just about to conquer that, but our
	funding got pulled or we didn't have enough funding, because people aren't interested
	enough in funding vaccine research.
	What you guys need to do is give us more money.
	That was the gist of his testimony, ultimately, and well, that was, of course, pre-COVID-19,
	and all of this craziness that's resulted.
	So yeah, you better believe there has been a lot of money that's been invested in this
	area over the course of the past year and years, really, when you look at the bigger
	scheme of Gavi and...
	And all of these organizations and institutions that are coming along to fund this research.
	So, yes, Peter J. Hotez, not just a vaccine proponent, not just an evangelist, but an obsessive who has made it his life mission to destroy those anti-vaxxers who are monetizing the internet because, oh yeah, there's so much money to be made.
	People are rolling around in money.
	It's just raining from heaven if they're online, except, you know, when they get Banned from Patreon and other places that make it harder and harder to pay their monthly bills.
	But yeah, but you know, those guys are raining, just money's pouring down from heaven on them.
	But the big pharma, oh they're struggling to find, to scrape two pennies together to save the world with their wonderful medical interventions, right?
	Again, you can see the rhetoric and the way it's deployed to try to shape the narrative, and unfortunately it works on enough of the population, enough of the time, because they are as ignorant as Peter J. Hotez hopes them to be when he makes his opinion pieces available.
	And of course, as I say, that's part of that higher-level propaganda that I was pointing out with the Foreign Affairs Journal, for example.
	It's not for the It's not for the masses, it's for the slightly higher rung of the ladder of people who would actually, you know, care what gets printed in Scientific American, etc.
	Well, alright.
	Peter J. Hotez.
	Really?
	You really want to go here and you really want to start opening the Pandora's box of the question of what constitutes science and anti-science and who is on which side in this particular debate?
	You really want to go there?
	Because that's what you imply when you bring those words out.
	Of course, you never define define them very strictly, it's just anyone who goes
	against the mainstream acceptable opinion of science. Anyone who goes against Lysenkoism
	version 2, the COVID-19 boogaloo.
	Yeah, yeah, you really want to go there? I don't think you do, because you have a little
	philosophical pea-shooter in this philosophical knife fight.
	But, uh, oh no, James just used a violent analogy that people use in their day-to-day speech all the time.
	Oh, it's word violence, I tell you.
	Oh, please make it stop.
	Someone censor him immediately.
	All right, no, let's do it.
	Let's roll up our sleeves and get to it.
	So, what is science?
	How does it operate?
	What is acceptable and allowable dissent within the scientific community on scientific issues?
	And how does that arise?
	How does any scientific progress at all happen if everyone must conform to whatever the current scientific Well, of course, actual progress would not be possible, and this is a well-documented, well-understood phenomenon that's been written about in depth for over half a century, going back at least to Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is a book that I'm sure a lot of people have heard of, many people might cite as a source of information, and a lot of people, whether or not they've ever heard of it, have
	They have the lingo.
	The lingo that Thomas Kuhn really introduced into the English philosophical universe.
	Which, I mean, it existed, but words like paradigm were not in common usage until this book was published.
	He brought it in, paradigm shift.
	I'm sure everyone has heard of this concept and now has a better understanding of it.
	They did not when this was first published.
	And that was part of its own scientific literature and the back and forth that was going on at the time.
	But long story short, Thomas Kuhn was interested in the history of science.
	And as anyone who knows, who actually gets into the history of science, that very quickly becomes About the philosophy of science.
	What is science?
	How does it progress?
	Why did scientists, respectable scientists, believe this baloney, this hoo-ha, that would be laughed out of the room today, but it was the acceptable scientific opinion 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, fill in the blank.
	And how does that happen?
	How does change happen?
	Well, you have the Karl Poppers of the world saying that, oh, it's an accretionist sort of thing.
	There's a proposal made, and then there's refutation of that proposal, and in the back and forth we learn a little bit more, and it's all just based on just the evidence, just pure evidence that's garnered from experimentation.
	That's the way science progresses.
	A little bit at a time, and we learn more and more.
	And Kuhn came along and turned that all on his head and said, no, there is normal science operating within a paradigmatic consensus, and then there becomes information that ultimately becomes incommensurable with the existing paradigm.
	A new paradigm will have to come along to take the place of that old one.
	And then there's a revolution as a changeover occurs.
	There's revolutionary breaking points in the history of science where a complete change happens.
	And that's institutional nature and it's fundamentally about scientific communities and consensus reality, in a sense.
	And although Kuhn himself, I think, later distanced himself from some of the more relativistic The implications of his work, they nonetheless are there.
	And for anyone who has even heard of, is even vaguely interested in the concept of the history of science and philosophy of science, I recommend you actually read this book.
	Not the Coles Notes version of the book, but the actual book.
	It is an interesting study with voluminous examples about how science works during times of normal science and then how it works at the rupture points, the revolutionary moments.
	And it makes some extremely important points that are increasingly relevant to this scientific society that we're living in, where suddenly anti-science heretics are being branded and cast out of the community because they don't worship the ooga-booga of the particular consensus of one particular community of scientists operating at a particular moment in time, based on a particular set of beliefs and knowledge.
	If you are interested in this, I suggest you read this book.
	But let's just listen to a little passage talking about how revolutions occur, what a paradigm is, Let us then assume that crises are a necessary precondition for the emergence of novel theories.
	not necessarily simply rational argument and experimentation, but by communities starting
	to change the ideas that they are operating upon.
	Let us then assume that crises are a necessary precondition for the emergence of novel theories,
	and ask next how scientists respond to their existence.
	Part of the answer, as obvious as it is important, can be discovered by noting first what scientists
	never do when confronted by even severe and prolonged anomalies, though they may begin
	to lose faith.
	And then to consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis.
	They do not, that is, treat anomalies as counter instances, though in the vocabulary of philosophy of science, that is what they are.
	In part, this generalization is simply a statement from historic fact, based upon examples like those given above, and more extensively below.
	These hint what our later examination of paradigm rejection will disclose more fully.
	Once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place.
	No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature.
	That remark does not mean that scientists do not reject scientific theories, or that experience and experiment are not essential to the process in which they do so.
	But it does mean, what will ultimately be a central point, that the act of judgment that leads scientists to reject a previously accepted theory is always based upon more than a comparison of that theory with the world.
	The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other.
	There is, in addition, a second reason for doubting that scientists reject paradigms because confronted with anomalies or counter-instances.
	In developing it, my argument will itself foreshadow another of this essay's main theses.
	The reasons for doubt sketched above were purely factual.
	They were, that is, themselves counter-instances to a prevalent epistemological theory.
	As such, if my present point is correct, they can at best help to create a crisis, or, more accurately, to reinforce one that is already very much in existence.
	By themselves, they cannot, and will not, falsify that philosophical theory.
	For its defenders will do what we have already seen scientists doing when confronted by anomaly.
	They will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.
	Many of the relevant modifications and qualifications are, in fact, already in the literature.
	If, therefore, these epistemological counter-instances are to constitute more than a minor irritant, that will be because they help to permit the emergence of a new and different analysis of science within which they are no longer a source of trouble.
	Furthermore, if a typical pattern, which we shall later observe in scientific revolutions,
	is applicable here, these anomalies will then no longer seem to be simply facts.
	From within a new theory of scientific knowledge, they may instead seem very much like tautologies,
	statements of situations that could not conceivably have been otherwise.
	Once again, that is Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a book that I will
	comment to your attention if you find this subject important.
	Please do actually read the book.
	There is a lot of very penetrating insights, not just into the philosophy of science, not
	just into the history of science, but into the psychology of the scientists themselves
	and how scientific communities form and how they work and form consensus around paradigmatic
	ideas and then how those ideas are shifted.
	There are, there's a lot of very specific historical material in this book and in that
	particular passage from chapter 8 of this book, Kuhn is pointing out and talking about
	the ways that paradigms change.
	How does a paradigm get shifted into something else?
	And it isn't a straightforward logical process.
	Well, this laboratory experiment refutes this paradigm, so we'll discard it altogether, and now we'll look for something different.
	That is not how change takes place.
	Especially, I mean, even in the 1960s, let alone now, fast forward 50 or 60 years, And how much more deeply entrenched is the institutional nature of science these days in the gigantic industry of science?
	Of course, through NSF and national funding of various sorts in various countries, but also through the research universities that are increasingly funded by the corporations and the philanthropic capital investment firms and others like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
	Which is an investment firm in all but name, essentially.
	So, there is a lot to consider when it comes to this, and for those who need specific examples, in the book, Kuhn goes through many, many specific examples from the history of science, talking about how various theories were forwarded, and how an entire research paradigm formed around them, talking about phlogiston, and the ether, and other such Concepts that have long since been discarded and are now looked at as pseudoscience ooga-booga nonsense, but at the time was the cutting edge of science and it was the scientific consensus.
	How did that change?
	How did that changeover take place?
	That's not an academic question.
	That's a very, very important question that we need a real answer to in order to understand what constitutes science Versus anti-science.
	Oh, you're anti-science!
	You're saying something that goes against whatever my view of the establishment mainstream respectable scientific opinion is in this particular moment, based on this particular field of research and this knowledge that we have in these experiments that have been officially approved.
	Not those ones, no!
	So, again, who is Peter J. Hotez to be sitting on that cloud deeming what is science and what is anti-science?
	We don't have to dig deeply into the history of science in order to find examples of this going on, because it is going on today, and we can see it in the daily news headlines.
	Like, for example, this little exchange from an interview that Saint Fauci conducted, where he was pressured a little about some of the Some of the things that we would have expected to see happen in places like Texas that are opening up completely, 100%, no statewide mask mandates or restrictions on businesses, well, shouldn't this have been a wave of death?
	You mentioned Texas and that full ballpark in Arlington yesterday.
	There was a lot of concern last month when Texas effectively opened up, dropped all those restrictions, and said it's back to life.
	And if you go to Texas, as you know, it looks like 2019.
	The restaurants and the bars are full and open.
	The ballparks are full.
	And yet, we've seen cases and hospitalizations since then continue to tick downward.
	So what do you make of that, as all of us Yeah, you know, it can be confusing because you may see a lag and a delay because often you have to wait a few weeks before you see the effect of what you're doing right now.
	You know, there are a lot of things that go into that.
	I mean, when you say that they've had a lot of activity on the outside like ball games. I'm not
	really quite sure. It could be they're doing things outdoors. You know, it's very difficult to
	just one-on-one compare that.
	You just have to see in the long range. I hope they continue to tick down. If they do, that would
	be great. But there's always the concern when you pull back on methods, particularly things like
	indoor dining and bars that are crowded, you can see a delay and then all of a sudden tick right
	back up.
	We've been fooled before by situations where people begin to open up, nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, several weeks later, things start exploding on you.
	So we've got to be careful we don't prematurely judge that.
	Oh yeah, just wait another couple weeks.
	We'll see it in a couple of weeks.
	Don't worry, just wait a couple weeks.
	The deaths are coming.
	Trust us.
	It can't possibly be that the paradigm under which we are operating, in which lockdowns are safe and effective against this killer respiratory viral infection that is going everywhere, it can't possibly be that there's any problem with any of that.
	No, it's just that we haven't seen it play out yet.
	It just takes time.
	How much time?
	Well, we can't predict that.
	That's unpredictable.
	So, there are moments of aporia in the data.
	Well, we, you know, this doesn't actually line up with anything that we would have expected or predicted, but it still, it doesn't undermine our theory.
	This is how scientific establishment works.
	It continues to defend paradigms that are, that have long since ceased to be defensible, simply because, well, there's no new paradigm coming along to take its place, because we are squelching it out of existence In this Soviet-style, Lysenkoist purge of any possible alternative explanations for what is happening with this highly, highly tampered with data, as we've talked about before, lies, damned lies, and coronavirus statistics.
	Well, it is...
	Definitely a parlor game that is being played, and it is being played through tricks like these.
	Well, yes, of course we can't see a wave of deaths yet.
	It's only been two weeks, three weeks, it's only been a month, it's only been... etc.
	And then they can continue to defer that forever, and then whenever any death ever happens, they can say, well, look, see, it was directly responsible.
	This is a game that is being played right now.
	It is inherently not scientific in nature.
	There is no testable prediction being made here.
	It's just that at some point in the future there will be some sort of rise in some sort of broadly defined respiratory infection cases or something.
	Or some sort of increase in hospital occupancy.
	A decrease in beds available, but actually there are less beds available because you're sending doctors and nurses home.
	But don't worry about any of that statistical chicanery.
	Again, you see how this game works.
	And as I say, this is playing out every single day in all sorts of different ways.
	You can see it in any number of headlines, like this one.
	This recent one from The Guardian.
	When have they ever lied to you?
	Israel and Chile both led on COVID jabs, so why is one back in lockdown?
	And it says, analysis contrasting national outcomes highlight how easily UK could blow its chances.
	And this article starts by saying that as mass vaccination programs take hold around the world, some countries have begun to get on top of the virus, while others have continued to struggle.
	Two countries that have streaked ahead with immunizations are Israel and Chile.
	But, as Israel edges back to a new normal, Chile has been plunged back into lockdown.
	And then, so it goes on to try to describe this and define this.
	So okay, so they're both Wide-scale immunization is happening in both countries, but they're having wildly divergent outcomes.
	How could this possibly be the case?
	Because we know that the vaccines are, say it with me, safe and effective.
	That is the paradigm.
	That has been absolutely, 100% established.
	Question mark?
	Asterisk?
	Really?
	Future vaccines?
	Please see it on CorporateReport.com.
	You can't see it on YouTube because they have scrubbed it from YouTube.
	But so what could possibly be happening here?
	Well, as they go on to explain, Israel has recorded dramatic falls in rates of infection, hospital admissions, and deaths after running what was the world's fastest COVID vaccination campaign.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	It's been a miracle.
	So what's happening in Chile?
	Chile is in the enviable position of having vaccinated faster than any country in the Americas.
	More than a third of the country's 18 million people have received at least one shot of either Pfizer-BioNTech or China's Sinovac biotech vaccine.
	However, cases have soared to the point of overwhelming the health system and strict lockdown measures are back in place.
	So what went wrong?
	The speedy vaccination program appears to have instilled a false sense of security that led the country to ease restrictions too soon without people appreciating the ongoing risks.
	Blah blah blah.
	So they give some sort of wishy-washy Completely unfalsifiable, untestable, unquantifiable sociological explanation.
	Well, people had a false sense of security, so they did risky things, and they didn't follow restrictions enough.
	And how are you ever going to refute that?
	That is not a scientific claim at all.
	It's just a, well, people were out there being people in Chile.
	They weren't in Israel.
	Therefore, we can explain the divergence in outcomes.
	Do you buy that?
	Does that sound like a scientific rationale for you?
	Does that sound like a post, an ad-hoc rationalization?
	Exactly as Kuhn was pointing out 60 years ago.
	This is how scientific paradigms shatter.
	Not because of, oh well, look, there are divergent outcomes, therefore there must be something going on here that is not accounted for in our paradigm.
	No, scientists don't do that.
	They come up with ad-hoc rationalizations.
	Oh, people in Chile were going out willy-nilly and people in Israel were following the rules.
	Therefore, And of course, again, how can you test that?
	How can you predict that?
	How can you falsify that?
	How can you quantify that?
	It's just mealy-mouthed sociological blather that they throw on top as a rationalization.
	And it's inherently At least non-scientific.
	I don't know if I'd go so far to call it anti-scientific and say it's a, oh, the Guardian are terrorists and on par with nuclear proliferation as a threat to national security, and try to get people locked in jail for espousing such views.
	But it is an ad hoc rationalization that has nothing to do with science.
	So this is how this works.
	And if this sounds familiar, it's because this is exactly what I was driving at last year.
	In my propaganda watch piece on same facts, opposite conclusions.
	You can have the exact same set of data, but depending whether you're working from the paradigm that lockdowns are great and they save people, so we should have locked down harder and earlier and longer versus, well, lockdowns actually seem to be killing more people than they're saving, etc.
	Or, hey, maybe lockdowns are only bad, and that they're not saving anyone from anything.
	I mean, again, there are a lot of different paradigms that you could be operating on, all of which would read the exact same data in vastly different ways.
	This is a known fact about how scientific consensus works, because ultimately it is a community consensus that has arrived at through increasingly institutionalized nature of the scientific establishment as it has come to be formed,
	as I say, around government grants and around research universities funded by
	corporations and by these philanthro-capitalist groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and
	others who are diverting money into specific research paradigms for the purpose of producing specific
	products that can be sold on markets in a specific way that obviously, as we know, as I say,
	please check my previous reporting on various aspects of the crisis of science for more detail
	on how this works on an establishment institutional level.
	But that is what is happening.
	And so it is especially dangerous When people like Peter J. Hotez and Dr. Lina Nguyen come out and start to presume to have the ability to denote, this is science and that is anti-science, and anyone who is promoting anything anti-scientific needs to be dealt with as a national security threat.
	They are not playing games.
	This is not a joke.
	Let's not take this lightly.
	They are not being coy about it.
	They are coming out and telling you to your face that they now consider you To be a national security threat if you happen to disagree with their science or their ad hoc rationalizations for a theory that is increasingly falling apart before our very eyes.
	So, what we are seeing here is truly a step even further towards the absolute abyss that I've been warning about for many years when it comes to this deification of science.
	Not science as a process, not as an inductive method of coming to some sort of understanding of the physical nature or properties of the universe, at least as they apply in this time and this space, because it's an inductive field that you can't become too deductive or axiomatic truths about, anyway.
	Let's not get that far into the philosophy, shall we?
	But even from that to using science as if it's a noun, a personal pronoun, a person that can speak, science says this, science says that, which of course has been used for years, demonstrably so, as a bludgeon that is used down to beat To beat down the political opponents of whoever is wielding that stick.
	And in the U.S.
	context, I think most obviously it's the Democrat Party using it as a bludgeon against their opponents in the Republican Party in the left-right sideshow.
	But it is now being used literally as a weapon that they are going to aim at their targets, which is anyone who disagrees with them or their pronouncements.
	about what you need to do in order to keep yourself safe and others around you.
	You see, it's about caring about other people.
	This is something that I have been ringing the alarm bell about for years now, and if I feel, if I seem a bit worked up about it today, it is because we are at an extremely dangerous spot where the Peter J. Hotezes and others, the mouthpieces of this establishment, are coming out and identifying People who disagree with them as national security threats on par with terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
	That is not empty rhetoric.
	That is a declaration of war, essentially, and I take it very seriously.
	But if you want a much calmer and more rational and And more staid and more Corbett-like analysis of this situation.
	Go back to my piece in 2017 on the weaponization of science, where I identified this phenomenon, I called it out for what it was, I told you where it was heading before we actually got here, so it was in a... back in the days in 2017 when this seemed much more of a theoretical sort of thing and not a genuine existential threat.
	Science must shape policy.
	Science is universal.
	Science brings out the best in us.
	With an informed, optimistic view of the future, together, we can, dare I say it, save the world!
	Thank you!
	As I say, it's getting really ridiculous, and the idea that politicization of science?
	What's that?
	That anyone could have that view in this day and age is ridiculous on its face, and it just keeps getting more ridiculous by the day.
	People might have seen, just in the past week, Skeptic.com publishing an article about another hoaxing of a peer-reviewed And guess what, guys?
	social scientific journal in which the authors deliberately went about to
	construct a complete nonsense argument about how the penis is a social
	construct which is responsible for climate change and guess what guys it
	got peer-reviewed and approved and published in that peer-reviewed journal
	so it does get more and more and more blatant and ridiculous and the point of
	that particular hoax was to show that as long as journals as long as papers
	corresponded to the moral outlook of a journals editors it will be most likely
	approved for publication and it certainly was in that case It's about constructing a worldview, conforming to the
	worldview, conforming to the paradigmatic consensus, if we want to get Kuhnian about this.
	But anyway, but this is so blatant by this point, it's undeniable.
	And I think it's perhaps most clearly manifested in something that I think everyone understands
	by now, the entire industry of food safety studies of various sorts.
	And a perfect example of that came out just in the past month, where it was discovered,
	revealed, oh my God, who would have thought it?
	People who consume artificial sweeteners like aspartame are three times more likely to suffer
	from a common form of stroke than others.
	Who would have thought it?
	Except everyone who's been warning about aspartame for decades.
	And decades.
	And if you want to know more about aspartame and how it got approved in the first place, you can go back and listen to my earlier podcast on Meet Donald Rumsfeld, where we talked about his role in getting aspartame approved for human consumption in the first place.
	But yes, now decades later, they come out with a study that shows, well, guys, we had no idea.
	But guess what?
	It does apparently cause strokes.
	And this is particularly galling, I suppose, because if you go back even a couple of years ago, the The paper of record, the Old Grey Lady, the New York Times, and every other publication, to be fair, that ever tried to address this, would always talk about sweeteners as being better than sugar for you, better for you.
	And they would point to a handful of studies, the same studies every time, including, I mean, just as one example, this 2007 study, it was a peer review study through various different studies that had been published.
	And this was done by a panel of experts, as it was said at the time, and it was cited in all of these different reports by the New York Times and others, as showing that aspartame was even safer than sugar and blah blah blah.
	And when you actually looked at the study itself, you found that, lo and behold, the panel of experts was put together by something called the Burdock Group.
	Which was a consulting firm that worked for the food industry, amongst others, and was, in that particular instance, hired by Ajinomoto, who people might know as a producer of aspartame.
	So yes, you have the aspartame manufacturers hiring consultants to put together panels of scientific experts that then come out with the conclusion that, yes, aspartame is sweet as honey, but good for you, like breathing Breathing oxygen.
	It's just so wonderful.
	Oh, it's like manna from heaven.
	And lo and behold, they were lying.
	Who would have thought it?
	Who would have imagined that the scientific process could be so thoroughly corrupted?
	Well, this is the point at which we find ourselves now in 2017, where the idea of political and economic influence over the scientific process is undeniable.
	Once again, that is the weaponization of science that I recorded four years ago now, and I will commend it to your attention.
	Please go and watch it in its entirety, and please follow up with the other reports that I've talked about today, about the crisis of science, about the sugar conspiracy, about various aspects of how the scientific process has been perverted into a scientific establishment that is now presuming to dictate what people need, must do, or must not do with their own bodies even.
	Crossing those absolute lines in the sand towards the complete and utter destruction of the principle of bodily autonomy.
	This is extremely dangerous, and people like Peter J. Hotez have just ramped it up an order of magnitude, talking about anti-scientific threats as national security threats that must be dealt with by the United Nations.
	It is getting absolutely off the charts crazy.
	And I say this, and I shouldn't need to say this, but I'm going to say it in black and white for the heart of thinking.
	This is not an anti-scientific message.
	This is, at its heart, a scientific message that I am bringing to you today, and I think the people in the audience who should be most Offended by the Hotezes and the Lena Wens and others who are using this Christ-a-tunity to forward their explicitly political agenda and put in the infrastructure for a future totalitarian society.
	I think the people who should be most offended by this are scientists who just maybe, perhaps, one day it just might happen That they find themselves in disagreement with something that the Hotezes or Whens of the world decree is the scientific mainstream establishment consensus.
	And anyone who disbelieves this is part of that anti-science national security threat and needs to be dealt with.
	The people who should be most concerned about that and most offended by it are scientists.
	People who are actually practicing in the field.
	Just maybe.
	Perhaps one day we'll have a disagreement with a colleague that turns into them being classified some sort of national security threat.
	Do you think that is the best way to foster the open pursuit of knowledge of the world?
	Is that really the scientific principles we are seeking to enshrine here?
	Of course it is not.
	Now, again, This is extremely important.
	I don't know how to stress or underline this anymore because this is an absolute cornerstone of the technocratic tyranny that is coming into view.
	The technocratic ideal has always been to enshrine the scientists and engineers as the real, they're the people who can direct Society, somehow or other, let's completely alight over the is-ought gap.
	Yes, they have knowledge about this particular physical process.
	Therefore, they can order society, order human society, and tell other people what to do and how to do it in order to best meet whose goals?
	Whose ends?
	Who is funding all this research?
	Oh, don't, don't worry your pretty little head about that, or you will be an anti-scientific national security threat.
	Again, some extremely important material we've covered today.
	I highly exhort you to go to the show notes for this podcast episode and explore them.
	There's a lot of information here to dig into, but I think I've made myself clear today that ultimately those who are concerned about science should be most concerned about this use of the game of science says as a weapon aimed against anyone who disagrees with the establishment.
	I'm your host, James Corbett of CorbettReport.com.

▲