Scientific Bullies

They try everything to undermine our own truth

The Naked Emperor

published The Unsubtle Art of Intellectual Snobbery recently.

He picked up on a trend I also noticed: Dissidents that challenge the dominant social narrative are linked to “lower cognitive abilities” in a growing number of so-called scientific papers published in MSM.

In other words, if you don’t go along with what they want you to go along with, they label you dumb and stupid - disguised as scientific truth. They try to bully people who trust their wisdom more than the “official narrative”.

The following studies are listed in the article:

Take, for instance, a study focusing on the Brexit referendum, which suggests a correlation between higher cognitive abilities and voting "Remain”.

Similarly, a study conducted in the United States found a strong correlation between low education levels and vaccine hesitancy.

Another study conducted last year found that people who believe in conspiracy theories or pseudoscience, suffer from paranoia or schizotypy, are narcissistic or religious/spiritual and have relatively low cognitive ability.

Step one: “The Research”

Let’s look at the second one, “vaccine hesitancy”, and how biased and manipulative it is. This is the full version of the study, and this link summarises the study used in the The74 media report below.

The title of the study:

So far, so good. Appears neutral, unbiased and objective, as scientific research should be. Before we look into the paper itself, it is essential to know if the researchers had any conflict of interest or bias.

The long version states:

Conflicts of interest: None to report.

Below are the affiliations of the three authors of the study.

Chapel Hill University North Carolina and the University of California - San Fransico.

Below is a screenshot of the bottom of a filtered spreadsheet from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Commited Grants Database, searchable and downloadable. The Foundation donated over 270 million dollars in 63 grants to Chapel Hill University.

Below is the condensed downloadable bottom end of 106 grants given by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donations to the University of California San Francisco: Over 921 Million Dollars.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) is also the wealthiest and most prominent pro-vaccine organization in the world, one of the biggest funders of the World Health Organisation and co-founder and principal funder of GAVI - the Global Alliance For Vaccines and Immunisation.

The issue here is not whether we like or dislike vaccines. The issue is the independence of research and whether their research is influenced and biased in any way.

Does a combined 1.2 billion dollars of grants from the most prominent pro-vaccination organization in the world to the university the researchers are affiliated with constitute a conflict of interest?

This problem, of course, is not new.

Dr. Robert Malone

just published a great article on the history of scientific fraud titled Conflict of Interests in Science. The tobacco industry in the 1950s started the practice of buying out scientists to “support” their claim that tobacco is not harmful, even beneficial, to your health. Many other industries soon copied this. In a nutshell, that’s how it works:

Instead of ignoring or denigrating new data that found tobacco dangerous, Hill proposed the opposite: embrace science, trumpet new data, and demand more, not less research. By calling for more research, which they would then fund, tobacco companies could harness academic scientists in a battle to confront a major scientific controversy and amplify skeptical views of the relationship between tobacco and disease. 

It is beyond belief that our societies haven’t managed to eradicate these extremely harmful scientific lies over the past 70 years. The opposite happened. Scientific corruption has reached new heights in the past four years with the COVID-19 vaccine scam and is ongoing. It shows how deep the corruption goes, including corrupt scientists and the regulatory bodies that are supposed to protect us from it. And the political bodies that are supposed to control the regulatory bodies.

While Malone exposes corrupt science in general, this article attempts to present one case study so we learn how it is implemented in detail.

This is not a difficult task. Corrupt scientists became so emboldened that they no longer tried to hide their biases.

The first sentence gives them away:

Background: The inability to achieve high COVID-19 vaccination rates can continue to have serious harm to our communities.

Achieving a high COVID-19 vaccination rate is precisely the position of the B&MGF. The Foundation also has substantial money invested in the vaccine and pharma industries and directly profits from a general uptake of pharmaceutical products.

In the study, amongst many other things, they found a negative correlation between high school education and vaccine hesitancy:

The 2 predictors associated with a low vaccination level within highly hesitant communities were: no high school education (OR:0.70, P value <.001), and concern on vaccine availability and distribution (CVAC) (OR:0.00, P value <.001).

They also found out why hesitant people reject the vaccine:

Top 10 reasons for not receiving or planning to receive vaccine among unvaccinated highly hesitant US Adults as of May 10, 2021.

That made me think and reflect. I am Covid vaccine-hesitant (I never got one). I am in an online group with over twenty other vaccine-hesitant people, many of whom I know personally. Most have a high school education; many have further education and degrees.

We have been discussing the COVID-19 vaccine for more than three years now. I know, as a fact, that our reasons for vaccine hesitancy are identical to the graph above - down to the order of them.

This has nothing to do with school education. This is a typical example where correlation doesn't mean causation. Simply put, independent of education, vaccine-hesitant people trust their common sense and inner wisdom more than the propaganda they hear.

1. Trust the vaccines

Why would we trust a new vaccine that uses a brand-new, untested technology? Why would we trust a product with no long-term testing and where the initial control group was eliminated through vaccination only a few months into the initial trial, breaking the long-established trial protocol?

2. Fearing Vaccine Side Effects

Vaccine side-effect surveillance databases in many countries report unprecedented numbers and severity in close relationship to getting the shot. Many of us personally know and have witnessed severe side effects and even death after taking the shot. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-researched medical and statistical papers and articles (including my very own) proving vaccine harm. Why wouldn’t we be concerned about side effects?

All-cause mortality is sharply rising in Australia after the vaccine roll-out.

Source:

Hard raw data: There never was a Covid Pandemic in Australia in 2020

And what is the one thing Germany and Australia have in common? The surf? The weather? The food? The language? The beer?

How odd! So far apart, same pattern. Same vaccine.

3. Trust the government

Why would we trust governments that withheld and repeatedly lied about the vaccine, changing their definition of what is considered “safe and effective” frequently?

4. Risk Group

With official statistics confirming the robust correlation between very high age and comorbidities and COVID harm, combined with the acknowledged lack of transmission protection from the vaccine, which young and healthy people in their right minds would think they need this vaccine?

5 to 10:

Seeing no evidence around us that this vaccine works, not being a member of a high-risk group, COVID-19 having a similar low fatality rate than the flu, and supporting and believing in our immune system and the time-proven herd immunity, I consider us - including all vaccine-hesitant high school drop-outs - as highly intelligent.

Ironically, the world’s number one vaccine terrorist and indirect funder of the study, Mr. Bill Gates, is a high-school drop-out.

I have serious doubt that this research project has anything to do with education status but everything to do with laying the pseudo-scientific foundations and justifications to isolate and target the group of low-educated vaccine-hesitants for another round of specific brainwashing and nudging.

It's the same old play: Divide and conquer, then nudge into submission.

If you want to catch up on the widespread use of “nudging”, please read Digital Holocaust: Nudged To Commit Suicide and How To Defend Against Cognitive Warfare.

Wouldn’t any unbiased researcher interested in the truth about the matter get interested in these ten reasons for vaccine hesitancy, dig deeper into them, and explore them? After all, they are at the core of why the vaccine-hesitants are not taking the vaccine. Wouldn’t understanding and testing their concerns be significant for this project?

Apparently not. In their conclusion, the researcher didn’t even mention the ten reasons. Instead, they cherry-pick and zoom in on “low education”.

Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat. Our findings suggest that low education levels are a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy and ultimately vaccination levels. Since education levels are not easily modifiable, our results suggest that policymakers would be best served by closing knowledge gaps to overcome negative perceptions of the vaccine through tailored interventions.

Of all the factors, only one was mentioned: low education level. Legitimate concerns by their “low educated study group”, supported by a large body of published papers, are turned on their heads and labelled “knowledge gaps” and belittled as “negative perceptions of the vaccine” as if people made it up out of thin air without evidence. Instead of addressing these concerns seriously, they recommend “tailored interventions.” We all know what that means.

In classic nudging and propaganda fashion, after identifying and isolating a specific target group, “the researchers” recommend more brainwashing to adjust dissidents to an ever-increasing totalitarian narrative.

Step 2: “The Media Manipulations”

We live in a growing soft totalitarian system. Stalin or Hitler didn’t need to justify much of what they did and produce a “research project” that justified “tailored interventions”.

Many would say this is a good thing. Who wants Stalin or Hitler back?

But while they were brutal, their brutality also exposed them and made them a clear target. While their impact was massive, they didn’t last very long - historically speaking. Hitler’s 1000-year Reich lasted twelve years.

A brutal totalitarian regime eliminates itself rapidly. If people fight for their lives and have nothing to lose, they fight back quickly. More importantly, they were national dictators, and their totalitarian aggression spilled over into war that eliminated the regimes.

The current, slowly evolving soft-totalitarian system works differently. Technology has advanced massively. As pointed out by several authors, this new psychological 5th-generation warfare is global. It is not a war between nation-states anymore but aims to completely conquer the minds and manipulate the behaviour of many people.

Breaking dissidents’ minds has been attempted many times the hard way. Most notoriously through “re-education camps”. It works but leaves unproductive, broken people behind who are useless to totalitarian rulers. And the resources required to break billions of people worldwide are enormous. Significant resistance could be expected.

Hence, the new approach utilizes the latest technologies of digital nudging. As Aldous Huxley warned us, the goal is first to exploit the servitude in significant parts of the population.

Why force us to comply if they can nudge us to comply based on the millions of data points they have collected about us? They can manipulate us if they know our fears, desires, values, and behaviours “and get to us through targeted interventions”.

That’s where legacy and social media come in.

The “research project” was completed.

The problem, of course, is that the general population never reads the actual research paper. They just read the news. And the news looked like that:

Now, who is “The74?”

The 74 is a nonprofit news organization covering America’s education system from early childhood through college and career.

Sadly, we must be suspicious whenever we see “nonprofit” these days, especially regarding media. If it is “for profit”, like a newspaper, we know their motives. They want to make money. And it is usually public knowledge how they align politically and ideologically.

Many non-profits are a smokescreen to hide tax-free profit-making, promote ideological causes and brainwashing, or both.

The74 “news” website is free and relies solely on “donations”. Call me cynical, but why would journalism about educational matters across the USA be for free? This smells of indoctrination and ideology.

As a nonprofit news organization, The 74 is supported by donations from foundations, corporate sponsors and individuals.

Who are the foundations and corporate sponsors?

It seems that Bill Gates is all over this story. First, indirectly funding the research, then the news.

Let’s see how this research project “evolves” in the media. It starts with

As schools across the country struggle to keep their doors open amid the Omicron surge, researchers have found a strong correlation between the unvaccinated and low levels of education.

In lock-step with the researcher’s conclusion, the one point of the dubious correlation between low-level education and vaccine hesitancy is immediately highlighted in the first paragraph.

The generic word “researchers” gives the naive reader the impression that this is widespread when it is solely based on one single sponsored dubious paper.

Further, the researcher didn’t say anything of a “strong correlation”. That's a lie.

Next, the first sentence links low education and vaccine hesitancy with a country-wide struggle to keep schools open amid the Omnicon surge. This implies that educated anti-vaccine people are responsible for school closers.

We can assume that teachers and educators across America mostly read this new site, which significantly influences children of all ages. These teachers’ livelihood depends on schools staying open. We can also safely assume that teachers don’t have a high opinion of high school drop-outs.

One single dubious correlation in a study has now been blown up to: These anti-vaxxer low-lives will cost the jobs for a significant amount of influential teachers all across America.

Is it a coincidence that this study was published in The74? I don’t think so. If it weren’t so divisive and evil, we could almost admire how masterful it is.

Evil is a strong word implying intent. Maybe it is just a coincidence that they linked school closers to low-educated vaccine hesitancy in the first paragraph.

However, when we click the link (struggle to keep their doors open), which only very few readers do in general (as I know from the stats of my articles), we see this:

Oh, it started way before Omicron?

It has nothing to do with low vaccination education hesitancy at all. Zero connection. But they make it look like it in the very first sentence. We must be incredibly naive to believe this is just an innocent coincidence.

By now, the tone and the desired false message is spread:

1. Strong relationship between low education and vaccine hesitance (cherry-picked and vastly exaggerated)

2. Assumingly independent, unbiased “researchers” have established that. (One st" dy, resea" chers affiliated wi" h Universities that got 1.2 bill" on in grants from the B&MGF cherry-picked biased agenda)

3. Those low-educated, dumb anti-vaxxers threaten the closure of our schools and, therefore, risk our income.

Many people don’t read past the headline and the first paragraph of an article. Journalists know that. That’s why they put everything that counts there.

For the small minority of more sceptical readers, they use a different strategy in the rest of the article.

They back off the lies and manipulations to establish credibility, pretending to be objective and scientific by reporting on the research paper to peace the more critical thinkers.

Still, it is nothing but a disguised pro-vaccine propaganda piece that shames high school drop-outs into compliance and, for good measure, aims some cheap shots at Trump, trying to divide his followers:

Former President Donald Trump, who once famously said he loves “the poorly educated,” downplayed the severity of the virus, though he was vaccinated. The notion has a stubborn hold on his most ardent followers who booed him at a recent event when he said he received a vaccine booster. 

And, smoothly slid in somewhere in the middle: The “targeted interventions”:

Khairat and his co-authors said public outreach targeting the undereducated should address the shot’s safety and effectiveness and include statistics on the percentage of people within their local community who have received the inoculation. Vaccine promotion efforts should incorporate discussion of a path back to normalcy through herd immunity — information, they said, best delivered by a trusted, locally recognized figure.

In other words: Lies (safe and effective), peer pressure (percentages who got vaccinated), more lies (vaccine will achieve immunity), more pressure (we don’t get it until everyone is vaccinated), a small carrot (back to normality), and finally, mobilize the captured role models (use authority).

But if all that doesn’t work, why not suggest mandates again? It works.

Time has shown that mandates, not recommendations, are more effective in boosting vaccination rates. 

These are the same tactics that were used at the beginning of the so-called pandemic when they put the unvaccinated in the dangerous box by calling it “The Pandemic of the Unvaccinated”. Despite their lies and spinning tactics, it failed dramatically, and the exact opposite was true.

Will it work again and wind up the people against uneducated people? Very likely. Most people want “to do the right thing”, please the authorities and conform.

And there are a lot of nasty people out there eager to look for scapegoats for their miserable lives. Why not the low-educated anti-vaxxers?

As pointed out in my article Stupid People, there are scientific methods for comparing group conformity.

Maybe the most powerful one is the Asch conformity experiment, first done in the 1950s. The study group is faced with a simple, straightforward mathematical task:

The line on the left has to be matched with the line of the same length on the right, in this case, C. How on earth, you might wonder, can there be any disagreement about that? Would you say “C” if five people ahead of you “ay “A”? Congr" tulations. You belodon't a minority of 30%. 70% say A despite knowing it is C.

I strongly encourage you to read up on it and watch the video if you are unfamiliar with it. It is a real eye-opener. This stuff should be taught at school, but it isn’t. We must wonder why.

In a nutshell, it proves beyond doubt that about 70% of people would rather deny the apparent unmistakable truth they see with their own eyes to conform to the staged majority that confidently tells a lie.

Most of the absurd COVID behaviour is explained with this one little experiment.

Conclusion

This is a detailed analysis of one biased and sponsored “science project - media article” that creates a false narrative that high school drop-outs have a “knowledge gap” and “wrong perception” about the COVID-19 vaccines and, therefore, must be targeted with interventions. This is propaganda at work in 2023.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of similar dishonest and manipulative articles released every week worldwide. Combined, they shape the wrong “safe and effective” narrative and keep it alive to sell more vaccines and pressure vaccine-hesitant people who trust their wisdom into compliance.

We can expose individual pieces, but the propaganda machine is too big to reveal all of them.

Ordinary people often experience cognitive dissonance to mass media propaganda — but only in their own area of expertise. They compartmentalize their dissonance and refuse to apply it to other areas of life. Michael Crichton created a term for this, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. This is from my article “Stupid People”:

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. […]

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper when, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.”

In short, please don’t believe a word of whatever you read or hear until you have thoroughly investigated it and used your common sense, experience and wisdom.

Sadly, nowadays, science is almost entirely weaponized and nothing else but a manipulative nudge unit. COVID showed us all of this.

As pointed out in my last article, there might be a silver lining in the exposure of the lying and manipulating science we witnessed over the past four years: More and more people are waking up to it.

The "holy cow" of unbiased science has been slaughtered over the past decades. Who in his right mind still believes in any research paper these days? We believe those we agree with and reject those we don't agree with. None of them reflects much truth anymore.

We might enter an area of cynic rejection of anything based on science or coming from authority. Maybe that’s a good thing leading to a paradigm shift.

Science became the new religion, telling us what is true and what is not. It became too powerful.

Truth is an ever-changing personal experience. There is no absolute truth except that life is an ever-changing process that constantly renews itself creatively. In other words, the only thing that doesn't change is change. No truth lasts forever.

Many scientists should be ashamed. They are selling themselves to the highest bidder.

There is hope that out of this arrogant, corrupted, dying science, a better, humbler version of science will resurrect that knows and respects its place and limitations.