“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
– Dr. Marcia Angell
by Lucas Brown, Free Now Foundation
When a college president says that after two and a half years of masking, students are still required to wear masks because Covid cases are rising, one has to ask, what ever happened to logic? When for nearly two years the CDC pushed for masking, though research that can be found on their own website concludes that masking does not work to prevent the spread of flu, one has to ask, what ever happened to science?
Here are a couple of hints to help you answer these questions. Not long ago Dr. Fauci announced to the world that “I represent science.” That’s a bold claim. Perhaps it explains why during the AIDS era, Fauci felt empowered to essentially excommunicate a leading virologist, Peter Duesberg, simply because Duesberg had dissenting opinions. (Duesberg’s Inventing the AIDS Virus refuted the claim that HIV was the cause of AIDS, a position that even Luc Montagnier, who received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of HIV, would come surprisingly close to: “we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected, our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.” )
Recently, a UN representative, interviewed at the World Economic Forum, made a claim even bolder than Fauci’s. She declared, “We own the science.” If anyone actually could own science wouldn’t it be better in the hands of scientists rather than in the hands of bureaucrats or the billionaires who fund the WEF?
It’s a trick question. Sadly, it appears that scientists may not be up to the task, either. Richard Horton, one-time editor of The Lancet says, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” Marcia Angell, another medical journal editor, makes similar claims.
Dr. John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine, Stanford, published a paper in which he concludes that most scientific papers are false! Here are two of his conclusions (each with a real-world Covid-era example):
– The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
(One of the Covid “vaccine” manufacturers, Johnson & Johnson Company, paid $5 billion in damages for their role in the opioid crisis. Should we have trusted them to make a safe and effective Covid vaccine?)
– The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
(Science publisher Hindawi recently retracted over 500 papers due to “peer review rings.” This refers to rings of scientists who scratch each others’ backs to build an impressive publication record by favorably reviewing each others’ work.)
Scientists are not alone when it comes to bending or breaking the truth. The late European journalist Dr. Udo Ulfakatte confessed, “I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public.”
When editors of prestigious medical journals confess that it is hard for them to distinguish real science from junk science; when a highly regarded scientist concludes that most research findings are false; and when a highly placed journalist admits he is paid to lie; it’s time to begin doubting almost everything we hear! That includes doubting proclamations about: the existence of a dangerous new virus; the reliability of a test for the new virus; and the utility or legitimacy of novel health measures such as masking and social distancing.
Mostly, we should have doubted the idea that the experimental injections, aka “vaccines,” are safe and effective. It’s clear, now, that they are not effective. In June, Dr. Fauci tested positive and had mild symptoms, despite having two booster shots. It’s also clear that they are not safe. Actuaries have compiled data showing that excess deaths in 2021 far surpassed those of 2020. Covid was blamed for excess deaths in 2020 and was mostly associated with older people, some with many co-morbidities. What could explain the far greater deaths in 2021, especially when working-age people are the most impacted? Only the “vaccines.”
The little data that was shared by Pfizer – because the product was rushed to market as an emergency use product – showed more deaths in the treated group than in the control group and more adverse reactions, too. And after only a few months the trial was unblinded with the excuse that the vaccine was so safe and effective it was unethical to deny it to those in the control group. This was the ultimate anti-scientific move, as without a control group the original trial could not be continued (which may have been the goal of unblinding the trial).
In the run-up to the release of the vaccine there was a kind of anti-human science that was aimed at getting people to accept the vaccines (really, experimental gene-altering treatments, if one is to believe the manufacturers themselves). At clinicalTrials.gov one can see a trial designed to “address vaccine hesitancy.” This trial completely ignores the issue of whether or not there is a valid scientific reason for one to be hesitant. The language used to describe the nature of the trial makes it clear that it is more akin to market research than science: “Explore which media story variation may be more effective in improving vaccination attitudes and intentions for different parental decision-making styles (deliberative versus intuitive).”
When science – corporate science, really – devolves to the point where one can not distinguish it from marketing, we can safely conclude that trusting the science is one of the most anti-science things one can do.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood this, saying, “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.” It is time for corporate science to die and rest in peace and to be replaced with real science, characterized by curiosity and a desire for the truth. Fortunately, there are many signs that this is already happening.
- Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
“Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
- SOA Research Institute Group Life COVID-19 Mortality Survey Report https://www.soa.org/48ff80/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2022/group-life-covid-19-mortality.pdf
(see Table 5.6 for excess mortality in working age people)
- Pfizer Supplementary data
(See Table S3, showing more deaths in the treated group compared to the control group)
Aria Morgan is the Managing Editor of Free Now Foundation. Aria is a passionate and accomplished editor with a diverse background in writing for various industries, including music, film, health and yoga, and with published covers and feature credits in national magazines. Aria is dedicated to protecting civil rights and promoting health and medical freedom, and is thrilled to be a part of the Free Now Foundation team.