Bad Science The Corporate Sponsored A – Z Guide!
-By Paul A Philips
As I’ve been saying in previous articles one of my mottos in life is ‘question everything.’ When it comes to the appliance of science and scientific principles this motto should definitely be used. Don’t get me wrong, science is a wonderful thing but like many other things I realize that it can be exploited, manipulated and deliberately limited for profit and political gain when put in the hands of the few, particularly those heading greed-driven corporations...
In light of this here is my bad science corporate sponsored A-Z guide.
Absence of controls –Treatment is given to the experimental group to see if it has any significant effects compared to the untreated control group. A cardinal sin in science is an absence of controls. This occurred in a case where claims by a certain cosmetics corporation were made on an anti-wrinkle product. The claim was later invalidated because it was found that there had been no controls.
Bias -Due to conflict of interest bias has found its way into scientific research quite frequently. Misrepresented science has been covertly used for financial or personal gain...
Cherry Picking – Involves selecting data to favour research that was done while leaving out that which goes against it.
Disguising speculation as fact - For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution has been used as if it’s a fact but is only a theory...
There are many cases where language disguises speculation as fact. For instance this can occur when using scientific conclusion. This can mislead using speculative words like ‘can,’ ‘may’ or ‘could’ in say clinical drug trials when the research is trying to disguise the fact that it doesn’t have any solid findings...
Exaggerate – See play on words
Fiddling results – People are apt to blindly accept the work of scientific authority individuals... Take the case of educational psychologist the late Cyril Burt. He fiddled his results from research to make the false claim that individuals IQ’s (intelligence quotients) cannot be changed. Consequently, based on Burt’s advice the educational authorities used the 11 plus exam to determine the long-term future of children pending whether or not they passed or failed...
However, it was later found through different and more honest research that IQ can change over time in individuals. So rather than use the 11 plus aptitude test to determine the future of 11 year old children possibly for the rest of their lives while their IQ’s could change and be more suitable for other things... it was scrapped.
Gagging results – Not allowing conflicting evidence or data that challenges the official view. For example, Michael Cremo has done meticulous research to challenge the official line that mankind’s history is a lot older than what mainstream academics have claimed. A number of People in academia questioning the official line using Cremo’s work as examples of evidence have been threatened with dismissal if they don’t put the lid on it...
Hypothesis –A hypothesis is where a scientist has a theory that something is occurring in reality. So he/she devises an experiment to see if it actually is happening in reality. However, bad science is where the reverse happens instead of seeing if the theory fits reality, the reverse happens: reality is looked at to if it fits into the theory! This is done to make twisted claims about something usually because of vested interest.
Inadequate sample sizes – Significant findings from small sample sizes could well be valid. However, sometimes in corporate research the fact exists that these tentative insubstantial findings due to only a small number are played down: The fact that large sample sizes produce different results can be covered up...
Justify –Corporate sponsored science with its covered up flaws and omissions uses its work as justification to take certain actions. These actions are profit-related or political and can involve paying off mainstream media corporations to blurt out their bad contradictory science to promote harmful products on an uninformed public. This occurs in vaccines and GMO’s. As geneticist David Suzuki said in so many words anybody who thinks GMO’s are harmless is either stupid or lying...
Knack –Getting the knack for how corporate science can be used to manipulate can put you at quite an advantage. Learn to discern for your own personal effectiveness!
Low key publishing – Putting out research papers at certain times when it would receive possibly little attention. The papers could be quite significant but because it could threaten the establishment’s scientific model by say the research revealing a cheaper alternative method of application then low key publishing serves to not give it too much attention.
An example of this was the case of an extensive cancer prevention study in 2007 involving hundreds and hundreds of women in Creighton School of Medicine Nebraska receiving daily doses of sunlight. The result concluded that the regular daily doses of sunlight prevented cancer by a whopping great 77%. These revelations were basically ignored because the cancer establishment can’t have this prevention too widely known since it would be a serious threat to their business as sunlight treatment is free.
Misguiding or Misrepresenting – Again that hoary old chestnut money kicks in here. The truth is when it comes to corporate sponsored science money has been shown to be stronger than truth.
Non-existent science – Journals sometimes even the prestigious ones like those documenting medical research have been widely criticized for being unscientific.
Oversimplify – The dangers here could be to misguide but that could be an ulterior motive...
Play on words –Scientific publications play on words like for instance the use of exaggeration or even worse sensationalism to gain attention... It may hide the fact that the interested reader might not see right through the oversimplifications involved...
Quality and Quantity – Science can sometimes misrepresent by failing to distinguish the differences between quality and quantity as in the cases of inadequate sample sizes, cherry picking or including evidence to the contrary...
Restricting data – In other words not including the science that’s inexplicable or evidence to the contrary in a research project’s findings, which would not favour the desired results.
Sensationalism – See ‘Play on words.’
The ignored flaws – Even peer reviewed science can sometimes be flawed. Sometimes this can be forgotten and this has to be considered when evaluating research.
Vaccinations – I would say that flawed scientific research is at its greatest when it comes to vaccines and vaccinations. The early history is rooted in bad science and deception.
Win -win situations –Used to bias. An example of this is in the case of animal experiments. An animal’s physiology is indeed different to a human’s. In research, a pharmaceutical company can use this to their advantage: For example, if animal experiments produce positive outcomes in drug trials then the fact that the animal’s physiology is different to humans is ignored, claiming success. If the outcomes are negative then this will also be ignored, claiming success on account that the animal’s physiology is different to human’s recommending not to pay too much attention to this. Yes, it’s a win-win situation.
X-rays in cancer therapy –In breast cancer therapy x-ray treatment is big business. The fact that it can cause significant amounts of breast cancer through its mutagenic effects during treatment with the science to prove it is kept under wraps and seems irrelevant to those making big money from the treatment. Infrared thermography is the solution since basically it does not harm.
Your participation – In other words for bad science to work it must have your participation in falling for the deceptions, so learn to discern!
Zest for profit bias! I know this is derivative but what else can you think of for z?!
Technocracy: How Its False Assumptions and Pseudo-Science Could Affect You
-By Paul A Philips
Darkly determined the world’s ruling elite and associates continue busying themselves with their goal of achieving total global domination through the technocracy agenda.
Essentially, the technocracy agenda incorporates technology into society with the intention of producing a new hybrid social structure. For this highly oppressive social engineering programme to work, to exert complete control over we-the-people, it makes a number of false assumptions. These proven false assumptions based on pseudo-scientific principles with their applications clearly show that they conveniently serve the ruling elite’s goals to achieve the dictatorship... See more