Pierre Kory has become widely acclaimed for his forthright reporting of data regarding Covid19 and the policies that have been implemented globally since it's advent. He here publishes Roger Pielke, Jr.'s article on the publishing of scientific research in journals and how propaganda has been used to deceive people, while censorship has been used to prevent that deception being discovered and understood. It is apparent that millions of people have died as a result of being deceived about the efficacy of treatment options and succumbing to adverse effects of mRNA injectables that were concealed by censoring information showing the dangers of those products contradicting the propaganda that claimed those products were 'safe and effective'.
IMG source - pierrekorymedicalmusings.com
It was such false claims of the danger of Covid19 that convinced me in March 2020 that scientific publishing had been weaponized, when the claim that Covid19 had an IFR of 3.4% was made by the WHO. Available data disproved that claim (best estimates are now .035% - two orders of magnitude lower, ~1/100th of the WHO's claim), and brutal psychological manipulation was being used to terrorize populations. Since that time tens of millions of people have died as a result of being subjected to the adverse effects of mRNA injectables that have been concealed by censorship, while false claims of need, efficacy, and safety have been promulgated. Financial mechanisms have caused journals, that have in some cases earned reputations for integrity over more than a century of publishing, to succumb to these manipulations.
I have undertaken to stay abreast of these issues since alerted to the disinformation I was subjected to, and observed that financial mechanisms have corrupted the scientific publishing industry. @lighteye first alerted me to these issues, and I remain grateful for that criticism that may have saved my life. I continue to advocate for free speech because it is necessary to our survival, and censorship of danger signals, such as the corruption of science publishing, is an existential threat to each of us, and humanity itself. That criticism reached me because I remained open minded despite disagreeing with @lighteye on other issues, and I mention this because it strongly advocates against censoring people because we believe they are wrong about something. This demonstrates that free speech requires enabling those with whom we disagree to speak without suppression, and to listen to what they have to say.
I humbly ask to be proven wrong by everyone I disagree with. I hope everyone is able to appreciate criticism for this reason, because all of us can learn we are wrong and by changing our minds about those things become right. Some of the things we are wrong about may be existential threats, and censoring voices we disagree with could be signing our own death sentences. The scientific method is basically skepticism, attempting to disprove hypotheses and accepting that those that cannot be disproved are as right as we can determine. It depends on access to factual information and that depends on free speech. It also depends on honest consideration, and that requires listening to those with whom we disagree with an open mind. Censorship and propaganda have contributed to the deaths of millions of people globally, but it is their own ignorance that killed them all.
Choose to honestly consider viewpoints you disagree with, because it may be you that is wrong. Choose life.
You can look up the RKI-Files, hopefully you will find a translation. It pretty much proves every Covid critic right.
I do think science in general is deeply corrupted, not by a single force, but by opportunists and midwits. Einstein already saw that the problems with the American science society back in his days.
This lady comes from university physics and is very critical pf science in our modern days. She says Climate Change is even worse than we think, but other than that she seems pretty bright.
From the discussions I remember having with you, I always considered you a bright mind aswell. Too many bright minds are too cowardly to speak the truths they see, especially in our current times. And while you might be even more contrairian than I am, I think controversial debates are vitally important. Circle Jerking with people you agree with might be nice, to make jokes about the whole situation and laugh, but why would I debate someone that already agrees with me?
I shall have to disappoint you here, and completely agree with you. =p
I know, that was the main reason I stopped debating you ;)
edit: the other reasons were personal stuff in my real life
We are better able to understand our world when we learn from and listen to people with whom we disagree. Thanks for being in that group and for managing our discrepancies respectfully.
For all my faults and lack of competence, I do seek to understand criticism and my critics, because, as I point out, I am convinced my life depends on their criticism.
Thanks!
@valued-customer, I paid out 0.661 HIVE and 0.157 HBD to reward 8 comments in this discussion thread.
Scientific reason is in word only. The idealists are not promoted and expelled. Every American is an idealist, not every American is American.
Much like justice is practiced within the illusory playpen of 'rules based order' and other such childish games.
Most folks don't notice that a 'rules based order' isn't the same thing as the 'rule of law'.
Thanks!
Dear @valued-customer !
Do you think the argument that we should reduce CO2 emissions to protect the Earth's ecosystem is false?
Yes. In fact NASA reports that as CO2 in the atmosphere has risen since the end of the ice age nature has become ~30% more productive. Plants are better able to make sugar from sunlight with more CO2, so natural ecosystems produce more food for animals, and plants make more O2 for animals to breathe, improving conditions for humans just as much as it does improve conditions for plants.
~55mya, about 10mya after the extinction event that extinguished the dinosaurs, CO2 in the atmosphere was more than 10x what it is today. In that verdant and fertile environment mammals that eventually led to human beings arising thrived and spread across the Earth. We have tested adding CO2 in greenhouses, and the more CO2 we add the better plants and animals do, up to about 4kppm CO2, about 10x what it is today.
We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.
The reason that there's less CO2 in the atmosphere today is that carbon is an extremely useful element, and lots of geological and biological processes depend on carbon, like photosynthesis. As CO2 is entrained into these processes it gets captured, like in the wood of trees, where it remains for a long time. When it gets captured in coal and oil, it can stay trapped for millions of years, even permanently, unlike a few decades when it's in wood. We have managed to begin freeing that CO2 from coal and oil where it has been trapped and unavailable to plants to use in photosynthesis. The carbon cycle isn't naturally balanced without people, because we are able to restore that CO2 to utility in natural ecosystems and no other part of nature has been able to serve in that role. We are part of nature, and our industry can be beneficial to all life on Earth, if we manage it correctly.
CO2 is good, but PFAs, endocrine disrupting chemical pollution, microplastics, and other waste big corporations managed by profiteers that care only about ROI produce are bad, causing disease, starvation, and death, the opposite of the beneficial effects of CO2. We do need to manage profiteers (on Hive too!), to prevent misdevelopment that is harmful to life. But the profiteers are not just greedy and uncaring, they're actually malevolent and harmful. By injuring us they can profit from selling pharmaceuticals and expensive medical care. By reducing the health of natural ecosystems they can force us to eat crap they grow using their biocides, profiting from selling us goyslop, that then makes us sick so they can profit from treating our symptoms of metabolic disease they are causing.
The real problem isn't industry, it's misdevelopment by psychotic, evil profiteers that will commit any atrocity to gain wealth and power. If we get rid of our dependence on centralized production that profits psychotic profiteers by using decentralized means of production to make our own products they can't parasitically profit from, we can eliminate their wealth and power, and the evil they do to profit themselves. We can replace it with distributed wealth, decentralized and relatively equally shared by folks that merit the wealth they produce by being productive parts of interdependent communities that do that too.
Thanks!
Dear @valued-customer !
That is a very shocking truth!
I assumed you were against the globalization of the Chinese-led electric vehicle industry!
So, I think Trump will be against electric car production!
He is dependent on Elon Musk for his election as President, and Elon Musk owns Tesla, one of the biggest electric vehicle manufacturers on Earth. I do not think Trump will oppose electric vehicle manufacturing. I do not think Elon Musk agrees with me, and with the scientific evidence about atmospheric CO2, because a big part of his fortune comes from that climate scam that makes Tesla cars sell.
We will see, but I am sure Trump will not oppose the electric vehicle industry.
He most likely won't. But he doesn't have the plan to ban gas running cars, like our politicians do here. I will follow that up.
I'm watching the channels on yt that are connected to the administration and who were fighters in the campaign. It's pretty impressive and shows the American spirit that the Germans are very envious of. If they keep up their ambitions and realise what they promise, there could be some good results for you guys.
Dear my respected senior, @valued-customer !
Currently, automobile companies around the world are facing a crisis due to the increase in Chinese-made electric vehicles.
East Asian automakers are also currently facing a crisis due to Chinese cars. So, many East Asians speculate that Trump will try to reduce the production of Chinese electric cars by reducing subsidies for electric cars.
Thank you for kind reply!😃
The USA doesn't subsidize production of electric cars in China. If Trump seeks to reduce production of Chinese cars, his only means of doing so will be to further reduce sales of Chinese made cars in the USA, and as far as I know there are no Chinese made electric cars sold in America now. Given Trump's campaign rhetoric regarding taxes, in which he hinted at eliminating income taxes and making tariffs the sole vector for taxes funding the US government, I suspect any action from Trump to oppose Chinese production of electric cars will take the form of tariffs.
Thanks!
Dear @valued-customer !
Many East Asians believe that Tesla, owned by Musk, provides China with the technology and capital to produce electric vehicles.
I agree with your assertion that Trump will impose tariffs on Chinese electric cars.
Thank you for kind answer!
off topic: I would like you to comment on my newest blog post. Maybe you have some critical points to raise.
I so dig your approach. I came to the same mindset.
I was into activism in 2010, advocating the scientific method as a way forward. I was with people who rightly pointed out the corruptive nature of finances in politics, the media, and culture. A veil was lifted from my eyes. I saw systemic corruption anywhere I looked, especially in areas everybody simply takes as a given.
I thought science = the scientific method, until I stumbled on examples for the contrary. While I couldn't be certain about - say - the existence of overunity devices, it always made sense to me.
But what eventually gave me pause was discovering how psychedelics have been systematically erased from our culture's memory and habits, in light if my life-changing experiences on LSD and magic mushrooms. Life-changing, and immediate.
I discovered that even and especially in scientific and academic circles, lsd was hailed as a medicinal wonder weapon, psychotherapists claimed one guided session with lsd could substitute for ten years of psychotherapy.
Then somehow, it all got erased. Research was banned and "laws" created to completely abolish these substances and their potential. And especially academia took the bait and ceased to show any interest despite all the early promise.
I asked my activist friends about this and they denied this. "No man, they're drugs and you are just a junkie hippie."
but i knew i wasn't. i knew i had discovered a prime example of science being politicized and weaponized, bought off, and the scientific spirit with it. I quit the activism.
It set me free and I have been rediscovering everything many times since then. I will be forever grateful.
Blessings dude!
There are as many reasons to censor and corrupt science as there are ways to profit from lying to people.
Thanks!