1984: Thread

[grarpamp]

> Propaganda Censorship MindControl Indoctrination Messaging 1984
> a big local problem, now turning into a centralised globally coordinated
> Mass Formation nightmare PsyOp...


'Science' In The Service Of The Agenda

by Robert Malone via The Brownstone Institute

https://brownstone.org/articles/science-in-service-of-the-agenda/
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-distortion-of-science
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/green-colonialism-is-real-and-must

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gmn01cBLPuoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&ots=krEKVkEZAc&sig=MODAnNJbHs2LPd7Aq9hfqMBo98Y
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2020/01/are-we-doing-diet-and-nutrition-research-wrong-.html

Starting in the mid-20th century, companies began distorting and
manipulating science to favor specific commercial interests.

Big tobacco is both the developer and the poster child of this strategy.

When strong evidence that smoking caused lung cancer emerged in the
1950s, the tobacco industry began a campaign to obscure this fact.
The Unmaking of Science

The tobacco industry scientific disinformation campaign sought to
disrupt and delay further studies, as well as to cast scientific doubt
on the link between cigarette smoking and harms. This campaign lasted
for almost 50 years, and was extremely successful…until it wasn’t.

This tobacco industry’s strategic brilliance lay in the use of a
marketing and advertising campaign (otherwise known as propaganda) to
create scientific uncertainty and sow doubts in the minds of the
general public. This, combined with legislative “lobbying” and
strategic campaign “donations” undermined public health efforts and
regulatory interventions to inform the public about the harms of
smoking and the regulation of tobacco products.

Disrupting normative science has become a de rigueur component of the
pharmaceutical industry business model. A new pharmaceutical product
is not based on need; it is based on market size and profitability.
When new data threatens the market of a pharmaceutical product, then
that pharma company will try to sprout the seeds of scientific
uncertainty and lack of proof. For instance, clinical trials can be
easily coopted to meet specified end-points positive for the drug
products. Other ways to manipulate a clinical trial include
manipulating the dosing schedule and amounts. As these practices have
been exposed, people no longer trust the science.

Fast forward to the present, and the entire industry of evidence-based
(and academic) medicine is now suspect due to the malfeasance of
certain pharma players. In the case of Covid-19, Pharma propaganda and
cooptation practices have now compromised the regulatory bodies
controlling the pharma product licensing and deeply damaged global
public confidence in those agencies.

We all know what climate change is. The truth is that the UN, most
globalists, and a wide range of world leaders” blame human activities
for climate change. Whether or not climate change is real or that
human activities are enhancing climate change is not important to this
discussion. That is a subject for another day.

Most climate change scientists receive funding from the government. So
they must comply with the government edict and policy position that
human activity-caused climate change is an existential threat to both
humankind and global ecosystems. When these “scientists” publish
studies supporting the thesis that human activities cause climate
change, they are more likely to receive more grant monies and
therefore more publications and therefore are more likely to be
academically promoted (or at least to survive in the dog-eat-dog world
of modern academe).

Those who produce a counternarrative from the government-approved one
soon find themselves without funding, tenure, without jobs, unable to
publish and unable to procure additional grants and contracts. It is a
dead-end career wise. The system has been rigged.

And by the way, this is nothing new. Back in the day, during the war
on drugs, if a researcher who had funding by the NIH’s NIDA (National
Institute of Drug Addiction) published an article or wrote an annual
NIH grant report showing benefits to using recreational drugs, that
would be a career-ending move, as funding would not be renewed and new
funding would never materialize. Remember, the NIH peer-review system
only triages grants; it does not actually chose who receives grant
money.

The administrative state at NIH does that! And anything that went
against the war on drugs was considered a war on the government.
Funding denied. This little truth bomb was conveyed to me – word of
mouth – many years ago by a researcher and Professor who specialized
in drug addiction research. Nothing printed, all heresay. Because that
is how the system works. A whisper campaign. A whiff of a message on
the wind.

The ends justify the means.

The new wrinkle in what has now happened with corrupted climate change
activism/propaganda/”science” is that the manipulation of research is
crossing disciplines. No longer satisfied with oppressing climate
change scientists, climate change narrative enforcers have moved into
the nutritional sciences. This trend of crossing disciplines portends
death for the overall independence of any scientific endeavors. A
creeping corruption into adjacent disciplines. Because climate change
activists, world leaders, research institutions, universities, and
governments are distorting another branch of science outside of
climate science. They are using the bio-sciences, specifically
nutrition science, to support the climate change agenda. It is another
whole-of-government response to the crisis, just like with Covid-19.

Just like with the tobacco industry’s scientific disinformation
campaign, they are distorting health research to make the case that
eating meat is dangerous to humans. Normal standards for publication
have been set aside. The propaganda is thick and easily spotted.

As the NIH is now funding researchers to find associations between
climate change and health, it is pretty clear that those whose
research is set up to find such associations will be funded. Hence,
once again, the system is rigged to support the climate change
narrative.

The standard approach for nutritional research is based on a
food-frequency and portion questionnaire – usually kept as a diary.
The nutrient intake from this observational data set is then
associated with disease incidence. Randomized interventional clinical
trials are not done due to expense and bioethical considerations.

The problem is that the confounding variables in such studies are hard
to control. If obese people eat more, would their intake of meat be
more or less in proportion to dietary calories? What do they eat in
combination? What about culture norms, combined with genetic drivers
of disease? Age? Geo-considerations? The list of confounding variables
is almost never ending. Garbage in, garbage out.

We have all witnessed how these studies get used to promulgate one
point of view or another.

    It’s not just within the context of red meat. The same thing
happens over and over. We get dietary recommendations put together by
expert committees and the data are reviewed. But when subsequent,
so-called systematic reviews of specific recommendations take place,
the data don’t meet reliability standards…

    Yes, available information is mostly based on studies of
association rather than causation, using methods that fall short of
proving chronic disease effects, especially in view of the crucial
dietary measurement issues. The whole gestalt produces reports that
seem very uncertain in terms of the standards that are applied
elsewhere in the scientific community for reliable evidence.
    Dr. Ross Prentice, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

Some Recent “Peer Reviewed” Academic Publications on Climate Change and Diet:

Enter climate change regulations, laws, and goals – such as those
found in UN Agenda 2030. Enter globalists determined to buy up
farmland to control prices, agriculture, and eating trends. Enter
politics into our food supplies and even the science of nutrition What
a mess.

Below are some of the more outlandish claims being made in the name of
climate science and nutrition. The United Nations’s World Food Program
writes:

    The climate crisis is one of the leading causes of the steep rise
in global hunger. Climate shocks destroy lives, crops and livelihoods,
and undermine people’s ability to feed themselves. Hunger will spiral
out of control if the world fails to take immediate climate action.

Note that “Climate shocks” have always existed and will always exist.
The existence of readily observed (and easily propagandized) human
tragedies associated with hurricanes, fires, and droughts are embedded
throughout the entire archaeological record of human existence. This
is nothing new in either written human history or prehistory. This
does not equate to a pressing existential human crisis.

In fact, reviewing the evidence of calories and protein available
reveals a very different trend. Over time, per capita caloric and
protein supplies have increased almost across the board.

The prevalence of undernourishment is the leading indicator of food
availability. The chart below shows that the world still has a
significant issue with poverty and food stability, but it is not
increasing. If anything, people are better nourished in countries with
extreme poverty than they were 20 years ago.

*Note the Covid crisis has most likely exacerbated extreme poverty and
undernourishment, but those results for the 2021-2023 years are not
(yet?) available.

Despite clear and compelling evidence that climate change is not
impacting on food availability or undernutrition, websites, news
stories, and research literature all make tenuous assertions about how
the climate change “crisis” is causing starvation.

These are from the front search page on Google for “climate change starvation:”

But the actual data documents something different.

This is not to say that that the poorest nations in the world don’t
have issues with famine; they do. It is an issue, but not a climate
change issue. It is a gross distortion of available data and any
objective scientific analysis of those data to assert otherwise.

The best way to stop famine is to ensure that countries have adequate
energy and resources to grow their own food supply, and have a
domestic manufacturing base. That means independent energy sources.

If the United Nations and the wealthy globalists at the WEF truly want
to help nations with high poverty and famine rates and reduce our
immigration pressure, they would help them secure stable energy
sources. They would help them develop their natural gas and other
hydrocarbon projects. Then they could truly feed themselves. They
could attain independence.

Famine is not a climate change issue; it is an energy issue. Apples
and oranges. This is not “scientific.” Rather, it is yet more
weaponized fear porn being used as a Trojan horse to advance hidden
political and economic objectives and agendas of political movements,
large corporations, and non-governmental organizations.

Facts matter.