In
the prior commentary, I promised two specific major examples of the
negative influence of NAS on our society. The first (re K-12 Science
education) is in Part 2. This is the second.
The
question is: is this real Science, or is it more of the same malarky
put out by Left-wing groups cleverly disguised as real Science? I say
the latter.
NAS and COVID - 19 Early Treatment -
Let’s
look at one of the most significant Science issues of our lifetime: the
COVID-19 matter, and the resultant government policies. NAS acknowledges that it was “Created to Advise the Government,”specificallyto provide us:
“independent,
objective advice to inform policy with evidence, spark progress and
innovation, and confront challenging issues for the benefit of society.”
[Note that the word “Scientific” (e.g., scientific advice) is MIA.]
So what does this new NAS book say about COVID-19? Here is a representative sample (see page 36):
“Explanations
of the origins and transmission of COVID-19 evolved continuously over
several months as new knowledge and evidence accumulated… {For example,}
there was uncertainty about the potential effectiveness of
hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID-19 at the beginning of
the pandemic. Over the next few months, as more studies were published
assessing the potential therapeutic benefit of HCQ, the picture became
clearer that HCQ was not an effective treatment (Abella et al., 2021; Bull-Otterson et al., 2020; Hennekens et al., 2022; The RECOVERY Collaborative Group, 2020)…”
Now, to 99.9% of the readers of that material, this all sounds scientific and very reasonable. But is it? Let’s look at this important matter more closely.
Considering that over 1.1 Million Americans died from COVID-19 (almost three times the number of Americans killed in WWII!), a fundamental scientific medical question is: do we have any effective early treatments of COVID-19? In other words, if a person is diagnosed with COVID-19, is immediate treatment with XYZ statistically beneficial?
This part of the NAS book addressed whether HCQ (a popular option) was effective for early treatment of COVID-19, and the NAS position is unequivocally NO, it is not.
To support their official answer to this MAJOR life-and-death matter,
they cite four “scientific studies.” Just the fact of seeing citations
will convince 99% of the public that there is merit to their conclusion.
But is there?
As a scientist, I don’t take
people’s word (including NAS scientists’ word) for such an important
matter. As a minimum, I will read the cited studies to see what they
actually say. Here is what I found:
FACT ONE: NONE of the four citations above supports NAS’s conclusion!
Abella: Not an applicable study regarding the effectiveness of HCQ, as it was a “Very small, early-terminated, underpowered PrEP RCT.”
Bull-Otterson: Not a study on HCQ efficacy, but a discussion of HCQ prescriptions.
Hennekens: Not a study on HCQ efficacy but a personal commentary.
RECOVERY: Not applicable as this is a late-stage (not an early treatment) study.
Conclusion: Zero of these citations support the NAS statement that“HCQ was not an effective treatment.” This is dishonest and incompetent!
FACT TWO: What do legitimate studies actually say about HCQ?
Remembering that this Report was published in 2025, it turns out that 38 HCQ Early Treatment COVID-19 studies were available to the authors. Stunningly, ZERO of these were cited!
What did these published studies conclude? The results are that Early Treatment of COVID-19 patients with HCQ has a 66%± efficacy rate!
This is an extremely positive conclusion. For example (per the data):
1) The FDA favored Paxlovid with an EUA, and based on 59 studies, it has an Early Treatment effectiveness of only 18%.
2) The FDA also gave Molnupiravir an EUA, and based on their own study, it had an Early Treatment effectiveness of 30%. Additional studies have since been done, and the current Early Treatment effectiveness is actually 9%.
3) Despite the HCQ studies and their superior results (e.g., here), the FDA (to this date) has not given HCQ the blessing of an EUA. Strong support from NAS would have made this happen.
The superior effectiveness of HCQ (which was available long before either of the FDA-endorsed options) indicates that hundreds
of thousands of American lives would likely have been saved if NAS had
gotten behind this effective, inexpensive, and safe COVID-19 early
treatment option.
FACT THREE: This recent unscientific treatment of HCQ is consistent with NAS's prior efforts.
For example, NAS had released an earlier major Report: “Critical Findings on COVID-19: Select Publications from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.” So what does it say in that about HCQ?
First,
it lists it as an “unproven drug” (page 251). Then it says (page 268):
“the roll out of hydroxychloroquine under EUA illustrated the potential
risks when more complete data will show a treatment released under EUA lacks benefit and is associated with serious safety concerns.”
I’ve already disproven the inaccurate “unproven drug” as well as the dishonest “lacks benefit” assertions (see above).
To
support their claim of “serious safety concerns,” it lists one
citation, a study by Chen, et al. Again, I had the temerity to go and
read the Chen study. The stunning thing is that the study does not even mention HCQ! In other words, the NAS sentence regarding HCQ is extremely misleading.
What
we had then (and still have now) is unscientific information conveyed
to the public by NAS. Astoundingly, the most recent misinformation is in
a book aboutScientific Misinformation, written by the National Academies of Sciences!!!
NAS and hte Scientific Method -
One other sample comment about the NAS book relates to the prior Part 2
commentary. That was about how NAS has been instrumental in undermining
the Science education of our K-12 students by creating the NGSS…
One of the main concerns there is that they have purposefully removed the traditional Scientific Method
from the NGSS curriculum. Based on that, out of curiosity, I searched
this new polemic for “scientific method.” There was one single mention
in 356 pages (page 47). It says this:
“The
Scientific Method is generally viewed as a reliable, and thus a
trustworthy, process for gaining knowledge about an increasingly complex
world beset by multifaceted problems (e.g., environmental degradation,
public health threats).”
This is a radically
different position than what was taken by the multiple NAS members when
they wrote the NGSS/Framework. So is this NAS’ way of saying that their
prior position on the Scientific Method was misinformation?
What Next -
The implications and consequences of the National Academies of Sciences having radically departed from Real Science are extraordinarily profound — and too extensive to cover in this installment. Part 4 will outline those, along with some suggestions for solving this gigantic problem.
Please give this matter some Critical Thinking, as your input as a victimized person could be invaluable.
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!
I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.
My
commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based
on the information I have. If any readers have different information,
please share it, and (if it is credible) I will be glad to reconsider my
position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives.
Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please
make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about 1-2 times a week).
This is a follow-up to Part 1 of this important discussion.
The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) was originally set up by Abraham Lincoln in 1863! The initial intentions were excellent: to provide objective, Science-based assistance to Americans.
This came about as all indications were that increasingly technical
matters were beyond the understanding of most citizens, so independent,
competent counsel was needed to assure the success of the American
Experiment.
That message is still being conveyed on the NAS website today:
“The
National Academies provide independent, trustworthy advice and
facilitate solutions to complex challenges by mobilizing expertise,
practice, and knowledge in science, engineering, and medicine.”
But
is what they are saying true, or is this just window dressing to hide
the reality that NAS has been co-opted by parties who are not independent, who are not trustworthy, and who are not supportive of the American Experiment?
This
is a long and painful matter that could easily be a book. For this
commentary, I will cite just two (2) representative examples providing
proof that, regretfully, NAS is no longer the independent, objective,
Science-based authority that Lincoln originally had in mind…
NAS and the NGSS -
It’s
well established that if the objective is to bring America down, a
guaranteed way of doing that is to corrupt her children. A bonus of this
is that it will take 20+ years to bring about, so almost no parent or
citizen will be paying full attention to evolutionary changes on that
scale. It’s the classic case of turning up the temperature of a lobster
in a pot a degree at a time.
The Left knows that the most powerful K-12 subject for them to influence children is Science. (Again, almost zero parents are paying attention to this.)
The NGSS is the actual standards, i.e., exactly what Science topics would be covered in each grade, etc. The Framework is a 400± page polemic purportedly explaining why the NGSS standards are what they are.
This sounds harmless enough (which is what any scammer wants to convey). The NAS was the primary author (see here), but for optics and political reasons, they enlisted: a) a teacher’s union organization (NSTA), b) a Bill Gates-created business organization (Achieve), plus c) some cooperative States.
Again, this all (intentionally) sounds legit, but the real (only) question is: what is the quality of their end product: the K-12 Science Standards?
To
me, it is astounding that no US major education-oriented Conservative
organization (e.g., Heritage, AEI, etc.) has formally addressed this
profoundly important question. In fact, they do almost nothing about the
many K-12 curricula issues — an astounding and inexplicable oversight.
Fortunately, we do have at least three (3) independent assessments of the NGSS/Framework package. First is from the independent, well-known, well-regarded Fordham Institute. They produced an amazing report some twelve years ago, where they rated the quality of every State’s Science Standards.
As part of that comprehensive assessment, they also rated the NGSS. Since the NGSS is being marketed as the “NEXT GENERATION” of Science standards, plus it is produced by the National Science Academies — one would expect that it would have a superior rating to any State K-12 standards. Right?
But no. The Fordham Institute gave the NGSS a “C”. (Worse, IMO, the Fordham rating is very generous, and when all factors are considered, the NGSS should get an “F”.) Why would ANY state adopt a “C” rated set of Science standards?
The incomprehensible reality is that FORTY-NINE States formally adopted all or most of the inferior NGSS — fully aware that it had been only given a “C” rating!!!
This includes thirteen (13) States that had Science Standards rated “A” or “B”! In other words, all these States knowinglydowngraded their K-12 Science Standards! When I say that States are responsible for at least 95% of the K-12 problems (not DOEd), this is some of the irrefutable evidence.
Despite
their impressive title, the NGSS are nothing more than a set of
mediocre Science standards that have not been vetted, were never piloted
or otherwise tested, and reveal an overt political agenda embedded in
K-12 science education that parents, educators, and the public should
find troubling.
And there’s more.
As a professional scientist, I am very interested in the K-12 curricula
issue — esp the Science curriculum. As such, I investigated the
NGSS/Framework package. Before I was even aware of the above two
superior reports, I found ten (10) very problematic aspects of the
NGSS/Framework, so I wrote a 50± page Report criticizing them.
IMO the three worst failings of this package are: a) they trash the 4000± year old traditional Scientific Method, b) they purposefully are trying to teach our children NOT to be Critical Thinkers, but to be conformist Lemmings, plusc) this “Science” material is seeped in Woke ideology.
Regarding Woke: a full 20-page Chapter (#11) in the Framework document is on Equity.
(Remember that this was written in 2011±, and Equity had yet to become a
popular cause.) Further, by comparison, in this 400± page “Science”
document, there is only one (1) sentence that mentions Critical Thinking
in passing. 20 pages on Equity vs 1 sentence on Thinking…
[Note that none of these liabilities are identified in the Fordham report, which is why I say that their “C” grade should be lower.]
Again, that 49
States robotically dumped their own Science Standards and took on the
second-rate NGSS/Framework package is irrefutable proof of how poorly
States are handling their K-12 education responsibilities. These
decisions were ENTIRELY made by States and had nothing to do with DOEd!
Evading Responsibility -
But what about the gatekeepers, education experts, scientists, and us?
How have 49 State Departments of Education allowed this to happen?
How have 49 State Boards of Education approved this incompetence?
How have 49 State Legislatures — responsible for oversight of their State’s K-12 education program — not stepped in here?
Why are 13,000+ Local School Boards complicit with this indoctrination?
How many of the 1.2± Million US Science teachers have gone on record objecting to this unscientific curriculum?
How
many of the 100+ Million US parents have publicly objected to their
child being purposefully brainwashed by this NAS material?
How many of the 2± Million US scientists have defended their field (and country) from this assault?
How
many Conservative organizations (Heritage, AEI, etc.) have publicized
the extensive rot that is infecting our K-12 Science curriculum?
Bottom Line -
Cumulatively, we have allowed NAS to corrupt the minds of 80+ Million
American children (counting those still in the K-12 system [public and
private] plus those who have graduated in the last 10+ years).
NAS has seen that these innocent victims have been given a distorted view of Science and are being programmed to not be Critical Thinkers.
The
profound significance of our children being extensively indoctrinated
in Left ideologies, plus being trained to be sheeple, can’t be
overstated.
Every year, there are 4± million graduates from US high schools. Most of these people end up becoming voters…
Do the math to see how exceptionally impactful adding 3± MILLION Left-leaning, non-thinking voters to the rolls every year
will be on the American Experiment. Once that sinks in, you might agree
with me that this is the most important societal problem we have.
Here is the best and most practical solution, by far.
Next -
This is just one of many major problems that are traceable directly back to the National Academies of Sciences. Due to the length here, I’ll provide the promised second major example of their malfeasance in the next commentary.
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!
I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
My
commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based
on the information I have. If any readers have different information,
please share it and (if it is credible) I will be glad to reconsider my
position.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives.
Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please
make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about 1-2 times a week).
Sometimes we are not able to see the significance of events when we
are in the middle of them. Often it takes time to elapse before we can
look back and see what happened in an accurate perspective.
However, Critically Thinking people who are paying attention will always get a jump on the masses in such situations. In that vein, this is a heads-up about a profoundly important societal change that is happening right now — yet no one else seems to be connecting the dots!
For
a few decades now, one of my most central themes has been that the
undermining of Science is an extraordinary threat to our society. Most
people are not aware of it, but Science itself is being aggressively
attacked on all sides. This is being done by self-serving parties as
Science is a gatekeeper against dumb ideas (wind energy, most COVID
policies, etc.).
The most insidious effort at disengaging from Science has been to subtly substitute a phony look-alike: political science.
This has been extremely effective as most citizens are not paying
attention, are technically challenged, or are afraid to speak up.
In the last month or so, there have been several major Science-related developments that will have positive impacts on every person on the planet — yet there is nary an accurate word about any of them in the mainstream media! Consider what that means…
FYI, I haven’t seen anyone else in the country putting this all together, so savor this perspective:
This Whitehouse Executive Order is basically about trying to get rid of political science and replacing it with Real Science (a VERY good thing). This is my earlier discussion about this extremely important matter.
2 - New Report about What’s Actually Going on with Climate.
Despite the many pages of technical documentation, this is entirely about one simple thing: replacing political science with Real Science!
This Department of Energy (DOE) Report is written by five world-class climate experts. I know them all, and they are competent, good people.
Rather than me outlining what this is about, please read the insightful insider commentary by one of the authors, climatologist Dr. Judith Curry.
On
a related matter, earlier in the month, NASA stated that it would no
longer post the prior “Climate Assessment” report on its website. I
found over 300 news sites that complained about this (e.g., here), and zero that presented the story objectively. I had to go to Substack to find that.
Of
course, when the DOE Report came out (effectively as an upgrade of the
prior “Climate Assessment” document that they all wanted), no mainstream
media outlet alerted the public to that reality. With the exception of
the WSJ, the few that did mention the DOE Report attacked it (like here).
The gist of this issue is that anti-American activists succeeded in getting the EPA to label Carbon Dioxide (CO2: a gas of life) a “pollutant.” In other words, they again saw to it that political science was substituted for Real Science. The new EPA has said that it would fix this harmful politicization.
If you’d like more, the CO2 Coalition has an excellent collection of articles about the very unscientific Endangerment Finding.
4 - New Report on what went wrong with COVID policies.
Guess what? This superior health Report (by dozens of experts) is commendably re-inserting Real Science where it was replaced by political science! Here is my detailed commentary on this significant Report.
What is needed now is for the FDA, CDC, etc. to change their policies to be based on Real Science (e.g., for EUAs). I have confidence that RFKjr will follow the lead of the DOE and EPA (above) and see that this happens.
5 - New Report on What Needs to be Done to Save Higher Education.
Over forty experts authored this powerful Report. As I wrote here,
I am in full support of what’s in their document. However, I said that
they should have also connected the Higher Ed failures with the K-12
debacle.
On further reflection, another key point is
that our Higher Education cartel is largely responsible for the
politicization of Real Science (e.g., substituting political science for Real Science).
Way too many university Science professors have chosen activism and the
promotion of personal agendas over their commitment to the four pillars
of Scientific research: Objective, Comprehensive, Transparent, and Empirical.
The
societal damage resultant from this corrosion of Science emanating from
our education system (K-12 and higher Ed) is literally incalculable.
These five recent positive developments are the visible part of the
iceberg that the Left is hoping America will collide with…
————————————————
The
#1 action that still needs to be done is that we MUST quickly and
effectively fix the U.S. K-12 Education System. For example, the Science
curriculum not only excludes the traditional Scientific Method (!), but also purposefully teaches our children NOT to be Critical Thinkers.
The good news is that (like the above five major examples) this can be fixed! See here for my explanation.
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!
I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Media Balance Newsletter:
a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media
does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education,
renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives.
Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please
make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).
For years now, I have preached a central theme: the main underlying cause of almost any societal technical problem is that we have replaced Real Science with political science. Think COVID, climate change, renewable energy, etc.
The root problem with ALL of these (and many more) is that Real Science
had been summarily escorted out of the building, and the issue was
taken over by lobbyists and a slew of other self-serving,
scientifically-challenged parties.
Despite my writing about this ad nauseam (e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.), it doesn’t seem to have resonated with enough key people.
Until now!
On May 23, President Trump issued a new Executive Order (EO), titled: Restoring Gold Standard Science. Although it did not specifically say that “political science” was being substituted for Real Science, that was the crystal clear message.
I have also repeatedly asserted (e.g., here, here, here, here, etc., etc.) that a true Scientific Assessment will have four (4) key characteristics: 1) Objective, 2) Comprehensive, 3) Empirical, and4) Transparent. The EO did not use this simple four-part tool, but covered most of this at one point or another.
The EO had some good definitions, but under “plagiarism” they should have included unattributed material from any Artificial Intelligence (AI) source. This is exploding right now, so it needs to be cut off at the pass.
The EO did not address one of the primary tricks used to fool the public: Statistics.
One other constructive suggestion is that although they mentioned “risk
models,” they did not address the elephant in the risk room: that many
suppliers of medical products, etc. convey to the public the relative risk of their product rather than the absolute risk. (See here for details.)
Another
missed opportunity is that the EO did not mention what is arguably the
most significant corruption of Real Science: what is taught to our K-12
children, every day. This is one of several chances for the Department
of Education to shine (see here) — as States have dropped the ball.
Please
read the EO carefully, because if this is actually properly adopted
across much of the federal government — even without my employing my
helpful suggestions — this will be one of the most important and
far-reaching US developments in many decades.
You can thank me later for teeing this up years ago!
———————————————
PS — If any readers know who actually wrote this (it looks like Michael Kratsios), and have a connection with that person, please email me that info.
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
Permission is granted to republish any of my Substack commentaries (with proper attribution). I’d appreciate an email notice.
I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!
I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
Media Balance Newsletter:
a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media
does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education,
renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives.
Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please
make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).
Recommend Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues to your readers. Science-based solutions for society's technical challenges.
In
1936 Emilio Mola, a Nationalist general during the 1936-39 Spanish Civil war
referred to a fifth column at his disposal when it was clear there were only
four columns of troops marching on Madrid.What did it mean?These were
supporters who would undermine the enemy from within the city.A population who had loyalties they hid from
the group.Individuals who supported
efforts against the group they claimed to be a part of.We would probably call them terrorists today, but most certainly traitors.
Until Trump was elected, and SCOTUS overturned Chevron with the Loper Bright decision, it became the duty of society to obediently ignore obvious, ignore what they could see going on before them, and provable
realities.Inculcated deep within the
collective psyche of America we were expected to accepting every bit of horsepucky which the so-called experts, the media, leftist politicians, consultants, activists, and academicians heaped upon us.
Now it's our duty and
responsibility to stand
up against things which are unproven or improvable.To end support of things that are not true, while
having the courage to stand up for those things which are true.
Academia is constant
groveling before that “sacred cow”, known as government grant
money, which has corrupted the universities, and we now know the media has been funded by the bureaucrats to support their continued tyranny over America.
Think about this. What if the only grant money available
was for the purpose of proving there was no such thing as anthropogenic climate change? I'll tell you what would happen, there'd be a dramatic
shift in gears and the information coming out of these self same universities would change overnight.On August 4th, 2006 an article
appeared in the Wall Street Journal by Shirley S. Wang, reporting on a study
that researched the potential of bias in science when it is tied to
funding.The finding?
“Studies show that even small gifts
create feelings of obligation, and that those feelings can influence subsequent
decisions, so why do many researchers feel they're immune to conflicts of
interest?” “Just as we fool ourselves into thinking we're more
ethical, kind and generous than we are, so scientists can be blind to the very
real possibility that their work is inappropriately influenced by financial
ties. These psychological processes usually operate so subtly that people
aren't aware that such ties can bias their judgment.”
Based on the tone of her article
she was attacking the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, and her points
were well made.However, what about
research that is tied to a regulatory agency such as EPA?Are these researchers any less affected by
this same kind of bias?
The activists have no problem finding problems to whine
about.That's easy, especially when
these problems are usually speculative.You know the kind I am talking about.So much of their whining is filled with Weasel-words and Phrases.
This
could happen or that could happen or maybe something could possibly cause something,
someday, somewhere by someone doing anything or something or maybe no one doing nothing or anything anywhere.
Wow, get your mind
around that! Whining about
speculative problems is one thing, fixing real problems is another. We must remember that every action triggers the law of unintended
consequences.Some consequences are
positive and some are negative.Sometimes both.
What happens when
the fixes they impose on society leads to unintended negative or even vile
consequences?Usually people die.Yet they go on their merry way as if this is
normal or worse yet, acceptable.DDT is
a case in point.Tens of millions have
died unnecessarily over the last 52 years since the ban on DDT and yet they
still fight to maintain this ban. These are adherents of a neo-pagan secular religion. "Ecotheologians, demanding 'death' on a crowded planet."
“Fifth Columnists” are heroes when they win.If they lose, they are traitors, either way they
undermine society and civilization while proclaiming to the world they are bringing
enlightenment, promising utopia, but consistently delivering dystopia.
We need to start shedding ourselves of these so-called expertsin the media, academia, scientific advisors, government consultants, and bureaucrats, who don’t know whose side they are on.Then again, maybe these “Fifth Columnists”
really do know what side they’re on, and it's not the side of humanity.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell
By Rich Kozlovich
(Editor's Note: This is Part VII in this ongoing series, and has been sitting forgotten in my draft file. I've updated and added a lot of material, and I have a lot more I didn't use. Here is Part I,Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, and Part VII. You may wish to view my entire kakistocracy file, which will include the articles from this series. I had intended to add more but it was a difficult and massive undertaking and turning into a job. RK)
Let's start with this profound truth. The Holy Grail of science is no longer truth. It's grant money, and when science becomes rich, it becomes politics.
As we watch the world move along embracing irrational self serving social,
scientific political, and cultural paradigms were seeing societies striving
diligently to cancel their culture, corrupting science with politics, enforcing a thought crimes from a small segment of
society that's never satisfied, and never will be satisfied, destroying
great institutions because their leadership is filled with self serving
invertebrates. All science now must be predicated on race, just as in Nazi Germany you couldn't separate mathematics from race, primarily Jewishness.
Lysenkoism is now rampant in American science, and just as scientists
under Stalin buckled under, so too it's happening in America.
Scientists who are prominent and respected are afraid to speak out for
fear not only of their careers, but their personal safety.
Censorship is now the agenda in academia, Dorian Abbot,
a geophysicist from the University of Chicago, was invited to deliver a
lecture at MIT but outraged activists filled the social media with
demands he be cancelled because he had the audacity to call for "equal
opportunity, fairness, merit-based evaluation, and academic
freedom". MIT caved and in spite of their alleged policy on openness, they demonstrate a
culture of cowardice.
Britain has now become a totalitarian state. Anyone who refuses to go
along with the mutilation of young children for transgender purposes
must be made to suffer, and they're being arrested. If you're guilty of "wrong thinking", you will
not be tolerated. This is an injustice that's being acted on, and it's being
enacted on in the real world, and from what can reasonably and historically be called America's mother country.
SCIENTIFIC CORRUPTION
How The Left Succeeded - A truly evil man named Noah Harari, a
futurist advisor to the World Economic Forum (WEF), told the forum that
they must become the majority and leave the rest behind. He was saying
we don’t need regular folks. We don’t need carpenters, plumbers,
hairdressers, mechanics, automobile workers, farmers, and ranchers. They
are all lesser lights. What we want to accomplish on this planet is all
for us, Harari was saying.
For the WEF and other related
organizations, this statement was acknowledging the globalist elites’
desire to activate Eugenics. It was introduced in the latter part of the
19th century and early part of the 20th century in Russia, where all
science that did not fit their desired narrative was rejected. In the
end, it set back Russia for decades. It is happening here in the US and
will likely have the same result setting our nation back decades if we
don’t stop it. Deciding that emissions of carbon dioxide are bad with no
science to support it is an example of Eugenics which disregards all
science it does not agree with.......
Corrupted science: The Left’s Machiavellian bludgeon - By Michael J. Maxwell
November 25, 2021- Science is a noble human endeavor with the goal of
discovering, examining, testing, explaining, harnessing, and preserving
physical nature for the benefit and advancement of humankind. Moreover,
the virtuous pursuits of science serve to augment our understanding of
the previously unknown. In its purest application, science is never
truly settled. Science is not suited to reach concrete conclusions on
the how, when, where, or why of the cosmic mysteries of the material
universe, its creation, or its Creator. For science, in its
historically accepted proper application, is not based on conjecture
alone. Scientific theories must be proven factually, through exhaustive
experimentation and testing, to become relevant, applied, and useful.
The
publishing of Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in 1916
was followed by extraordinarily frustrating, peer-generated attacks on
his groundbreaking science. A booklet was published in 1931 titled A Hundred Authors Against Einstein, featuring
many ill-informed contributions. In total, 121 authors are identified
as opponents to Einstein’s vaunted Theory of Relatively........
Academic Ideologues Are Corrupting STEM. The Silent Liberal Majority Must Fight Back (quillette.com)
Anna Krylov and Jay Tanzman 18 Dec 2021 -
Earlier
this year, I (Anna) did something that my friends feared I would come
to regret: I publicly spoke out against the intrusion of illiberal
thought into science and education, with a letter entitled, The Peril of Politicizing Science, published on June 10th in
The Journal of Physical Chemistry.
In that letter, I drew on my own early life in the USSR, where
communist ideology permeated all aspects of life, and survival
required strict adherence to the party line and enthusiastic displays of
ideologically proper behavior. I noted that certain names and ideas
are now forbidden within academia for ideological reasons, just as had
been the case in my youth. My own home town of Yuzovka, I noted, was
called Trotsk (after Leon Trotsky), then renamed Stalino after Trotsky
was purged, then Donetsk when Stalin was posthumously canceled by
Khrushchev. ............
Ten (10) Ways Science is Being Attacked - Jon Parmentola, commented on John Droz Jr.’s Substack site - I allege that if you look at those in the administrative
structure of the National Academies, they are dominated by humanities majors.
The same is true of universities and colleges. The assault on science comes from the humanities. I saw
it when I was a professor. Those in the humanities were jealous because those
in STEM could buy time off teaching through grants to do research. The
humanities were subordinate to those in STEM. That is not true anymore.
You can trace this contempt for science to the poet
William Blake, who referred to Newton’s discoveries as Newton’s sleep. The assault on the Constitution has to do with its
formulation more along the lines of a scientific theory of managing governance
and social behavior. It is also evident in the Declaration of Independence: We
hold these truths to be self-evident……. It is formulated according to
postulates like Euclid's plane geometry.
It's no accident since Jefferson was a scientist of
sorts. For those in the humanities there is no objective truth
or cause and effect. Their fields of research are riddled with storytelling and
nonsense. That is what we are fighting. 83% of college/university
graduates major in the humanities. They fundamentally practice pseudo-science
by using a narrative to dismiss facts that contradict their narrative. It's the
exact opposite of the scientific method......
Science Needs a New Paradigm - By Robert Arvay November 27, 2017 -
Science
and politics used to be very separate institutions. Where they did
overlap, science was nonpartisan. The role of scientists was to provide
objective evidence -- and dispassionate, nonpolitical interpretations of
that evidence. Indeed, one rarely if ever could detect the political
leanings of any particular scientist.
Also, science and religion used to
get along, at least for the most part. Today,
that has changed, and the results include significant dangers for
society. For example, the topic of climate change has produced the myth
of “settled science.” Science is never settled. While we all may agree
that the climate does change, there is an anti-capitalist agenda behind
the claims of many scientists -- that we must radically reduce our
standards of living to prevent climate catastrophe. Politics and
ideology, not science, promote that so-called scientific
view...........
TRANSGENDERISM
Scientists Shocked to Discover That Male and Female Athletes are Different!Brian C. Joondeph, M.D.A man is a man, and a woman is a woman.
Claiming otherwise is magical thinking, fine for one to indulge
personally, but not at an athletic, societal, or cultural level. It was once a commonsense belief and universal truth that men and women, boys and girls, are different, especially in the realm of athletics. With rare exceptions, men and women compete in their own categories, from high school level through college to the Olympic games and professional sports.
Mixed competitions place women and men on the same team, such as mixed doubles in tennis, or dancing, either in the ballroom, or on ice. Equestrian sports are an exception, but the fact that a horse is a major part of the sport reduces the sex difference between competitors. ......
The
leading ‘scientific’ agency behind so-called transgenderism allegedly
knew its ‘treatments’ could be dangerous and ineffective
-
March 6, 2024 by Andrea Widburg- Because
WPATH has been the recognized
authority for “trans” care in America and Europe, these revelations
could bring down the once-powerful organization. On Monday, Michael
Shellenberger’s organization, Environmental Progress (“EP”), published a
report that may end the trans movement. It obtained what it says are
leaked files from WPATH—the World Professional Association of
Transgender Health—which has set the standard of so-called “care” for
so-called “transgenderism” across America. These files reveal that the
people behind WPATH were allegedly aware of evidence showing that their
recommendations were unhelpful and dangerous......
Lack of Consent, Liver Cancer, Reduced Sexual Function: Internal Docs Reveal Experimental Nature of “Gender-Affirming Care”- ByTyler O'Neil, Daily Signal Mar. 5, 2024 - Doctors at the World Professional Association for Transgender Health
repeatedly struggled with various side effects of what they call
“gender-affirming care,” including cancer in teens, reduced sexual
function, and the lack of informed consent for procedures with lifelong
impacts, newly unearthed documents reveal.
WPATH, a controversial organization that transgender advocates and
health agencies use to justify “transgender” medical interventions,
frames itself as the leading expert organization on medical care for
people who identify as transgender. It has faced criticism for
advocating experimental practices that ignore serious concerns about informed consent and long-term side effects.....The practice of sexually ‘transitioning’ children
will be remembered as one of the “greatest ethical scandals in the
history of medicine,” a report commissioned by French senators stated......
Transgender ‘affirmation’ has long-term consequences, Oklahoma City psychiatrist says “Affirming” a child’s belief that he or she is
actually the opposite gender puts those children on a fast-track to
medical interventions that have severe, negative side effects that cause
that child to be a patient for the rest of their lives, according to a
local expert. And in most cases the gender distress expressed by children
is often resolved within a few years when the child is not subjected to
puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.
“Every single patient deserves to be treated with respect,
with dignity, with empathy, with compassion, and they deserve excellent
medical care,” said Lauren Schwartz, a board-certified psychiatrist and
psychotherapist in Oklahoma City. “That’s not what’s going on here.”......... “social
affirmation,” the practice of calling a child by opposite-sex pronouns
or allowing the child to dress as a member of the opposite sex, “is not
harmless.”
“Parents think that affirming their child is kind and loving. That’s
what they’re told......But it’s not kind of loving to validate an
untruth........That psychological pressure leads to further actions with permanent physical and mental consequences.......allowing a child to receive “puberty
blockers” in response to gender dysphoria can fuel an iatrogenic effect
in which an alleged response to a condition is actually responsible for
creating or worsening the condition. Children who feel they don’t fit in
truly don’t fit in with their peers after use of puberty blockers......
........ some medical websites
claim that puberty blockers simply “pause puberty to give children time
to think,” are fully reversible, harmless, safe, effective, and
lifesaving.......“None of these things are accurate,”...... puberty blockers have significant side
effects that are not fully reversible. Those side effects include damage
to the hypothalamus, which regulates body and brain development,
communication between hormones and the nervous system, sleep-wake
cycles, temperature regulation, fluid balance, heart rate, hunger, and
reproduction. “These are not small things that we are impacting,”
The drugs used as puberty blockers have never received U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval as treatments for gender
dysphoria.....The side effects caused by puberty blockers also include
diminished bone density, early-onset osteoporosis, chronic bone pain and
fractures (which does not cease even when the use of puberty blockers
is halted), increased risk of infertility, permanent negative impacts on
adult sexual function, and cognitive impairment. “It does impact IQ,”.........adding that the full cognitive impact of puberty blockers remains unknown.
Male patients who are given female hormones have increased
risk of blood clots, tumors of the pituitary gland, strokes, high
cholesterol, and irreversible infertility. Female patients who take male
hormones experience increased red-blood cells (which negatively impacts
the heart and cardiovascular system); severe liver dysfunction; heart
attacks; depression; hypertension; breast, cervical, and uterine
cancers; and irreversible infertility.
“They are going to be a patient for life,” .......
“If you arrest puberty and you put someone on cross-sex hormones and you
remove their organs that produce their own biological hormones, they’re
going to have to take hormones for the rest of their life.”......
CLIMATE
‘Climate fatigue’ sabotages the ‘net zero’ agenda- July 8, 2024 by
Olivia Murray -A win is a win. Here’s this, from one of my favorite bloggers, and shared with me by one of AT’s dearest friends: Climate
Fatigue strikes in Ireland: Most people don’t believe it harms them and
have no plans to be vegetarian or give up their cars Yet
another survey shows most people know what to say when asked banal
questions of climate dogma — ‘Yes they are ‘very worried’. But more than
half the population don’t believe climate change is going to harm them
and they have ‘no intention’ of giving up meat, or their cars or their
pets......
‘They’ shrieked about ‘global warming’ — but now they admit we were ‘accidentally cooling’- July 8, 2024 by
Jack Hellner - Is there anything less trustworthy or credible than government-promoted science? When
it comes to climate science, basically, researchers, mainstream media
outlets, the UN, and the Democrats simply make things up as they go
along to fit the narrative. When the earth didn’t warm up as much as they predicted, they changed the terminology from global warming to climate change. When
hundreds of dire predictions never came true, and they had no
scientific data to support their policies to destroy industries and our
quality and way of life, they just made things up, just like they did
with COVID. Now, take a look at this, from The Washington Post, via Yahoo News:
Biden sending $120 million to tribes for climate change war - The Biden administration announced Thursday that it is giving Native
American tribes across the country a total of $120 million to fight
climate change. The Department of the Interior (DOI) is disseminating the money, which will be split into 146 different awards to support
projects that enhance "climate resilience" in tribal communities. The
funding is inspired in part by the administration's view that Native
American populations are among the least able to prepare or recover from
climate change's impacts.
Climate Change and a science we can trust - The American left occasionally professes to have some investment in Christianity, but those are words, and as the Scripture teaches, by their fruits shall you know them. By their words, actions and boondoggles, the inevitable conclusion is their one, true faith is political power, and one of its principle tenets is “climate change.” Their revealed faith used to be known as “global warming,” but all of a sudden, the global stopped warming, and hasn’t warmed for some two decades. Embarrassing. Thus, the holy crusade was rebranded “climate change,” which has the advantage of being at least marginally true. The climate, like the weather, changes. Unfortunately, actual science reveals past climate hasn’t changed as they’ve claimed, so they simply ignore that science and make their own......
The results are in: How much will wind energy cost this one state’s consumers?">
- August 26, 2024 by
Olivia Murray - About four times as
much, with an additional three billion in taxpayer dollars—some might
call this “price-gouging.”On Friday, The Wall Street Journal published
an article by Gordon Hughes that (somewhat rhetorically) asked this
titular question: “Why Is New York Paying So Much for Wind Power?”
Hughes called the reader’s attention to the revelation that the state of
New York had entered into a contract with two wind energy companies, an
agreement that will quadruple the cost of energy for the consumer—and
that’s including three billion in taxpayer dollars to offset the final
price per megawatt-hour—which is “far above the break-even cost of
generating electricity.”
Some might call this… “price-gouging” and “corporate greed.” (Just not
the progressive Democrats sanctioning seemingly-endless corrupt business
schemes in the “green energy” sector with the public’s pocketbook and
the power of the pen.)
Mike Shedlock at MishTalk breaks it down here:.....
MEDICINE
The ‘Can We?’ and the ‘Should We?’ of Science- The remarkable journey of the COVID-19 virus — from bat caves in Laos to freezers in Wuhan, through test tubes and gene-editing machines and “humanized mice,” and finally out into the rest of the world and through your lungs and mine, often two or three or four times by now — has made a lot of people think long and hard about whether they can trust scientists, as a whole, to do the right thing. As well it should have. Defenders of the status quo are quick to admonish the plebs for not trusting the experts, as they point to the fact that most professional virologists are in favor of keeping gain-of-function research going. How can you, a pleb, act as though you know more about virology than the average virologist?.....
The author made some fine points, like: scientists should be able to have civilized discussions with people who disagree with them. That said, her good commentary missed two key facts about what is currently societally going on.
Real Science is all about better understanding the TRUTHS of our existence.
The point she did not make is that people like Mann have migrated from Real Science to Political Science — which instead is all about making POLICIES.
When scientists disagree about Truths, they can go back and look at what the evidence says. Whoever makes the stronger evidentiary argument wins…
On the other hand, when scientists disagree about Policies, the proponents’ response is quite different: appeal to authority (consensus, etc.). The evidence (aka Truth) is a minor player when it comes to political Policies.
This
situation is made even worse by the profound changes in our value
system. Through the last several centuries we relied on a
Judeo-Christian set of moral standards (like the Ten Commandments). That reinforced the time-honored tradition of scientists constructively debating with other scientists about the evidence.
Maybe
one scientist concluded that the other missed the point. Maybe one
thought the other was misinformed. In any case, they both tried to come
up with stronger, honest evidence — or some ally who could present the
evidence in a better way.
No one was ever sued about such disagreements!
However, Relativism has simultaneously blossomed (not accidentally!) along with the switch from Real Science to political science. This philosophy states that there is no such thing as Truth (only relative, personal truths). These new value standards include such problematic memes as the end justifies the means.
That is exactly how most climate alarmists act: scorched earth policy against anyone who has the temerity to question their political policies
to "save the world from pending extinction." Since they have contrived a
cataclysmic “end,” that grants them the “right” to justify almost
anything, including blatant lies.
As I was wrapping up my commentary, I happened to see this:
Good stuff! Hopefully, it should be clear that there are exceptionallyadverse consequences when we allow Relativism to replace Judeo-Christian standards, and political science to replace Real Science.
Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Media Balance Newsletter:
a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media
does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education,
renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives.
Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please
make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).
