Abuse of Science: A Way to Manipulate Public Consciousness

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Have you heard of the shocking study published in a journal published by the Public Science Library, which says that up to 72% of scientists admit that their colleagues were somehow involved in "questionable research" and that 14% of them participated in explicit "Falsifications"?

The Public Library of Science Journal is a non-profit organization founded as part of a scientific publishing project to create a library of journals and other scientific literature under a free license and freely available (translator's note)

If that didn't scare you, here's another fact: Between 1977 and 1990, the FDA found errors and shortcomings in 10-20% of all scientific research during audits. [2]

It gets worse: Scientists at Amgen, a biotech firm headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California, have begun re-validating the results of 53 major peer-reviewed and published publications in the fields of cancer research and blood biology. Shocking data was found: only 6 out of 53 studies can be considered legitimate and reliable. This means that about 90% of studies contain false information and erroneous conclusions, and at the same time they were made public as scientifically proven facts! [3]

In other words, my friends, in the scientific world, under the guise of scientific research, you can find a lot of stupid nonsense that can be safely thrown into the trash.

One thing is alarming: after all, "science" has practically replaced religion for people as a new authority, which should be blindly worshiped in all possible ways. People talk about science as if it is infallible, and anyone who doubts the high priests from science is usually persecuted, humiliated and rejected as a new-born heretic.

But science, like any religion, is not a god who utters the only true Truth. Science is far from infallibility, it needs to be constantly updated, improved, challenged, revised and changed for the simple reason that science is limited by the framework of a narrow and distorted human perception, which all humanity sins, and which only grows and expands over the years, besides, he easily gives up under the onslaught of prejudice, vanity and corruption.

In fact, science, of course, is an inanimate person and can be neither good nor bad, because it does not have its own consciousness. Science is not a person, so we should stop talking about it as if it is our superhero. Science is just a vehicle that needs a driver, and obviously the direction of travel will differ depending on who gets behind the wheel.

While some are wholeheartedly pursuing the noble goal of finding objective Truth, most can be bribed by playing on greed (like, for example, Iowa State University professor Dong-Pyou Han, who is now serving a prison sentence for falsifying HIV vaccines), playing on a lust for fame, common human prejudice, or a selfish desire for vanity. Leading anesthesiologist Scott Reuben, who helped revolutionize orthopedic surgery, fabricated data in more than 20 studies, and German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön, who has received numerous awards for his work, turns out to be falsified as well. study.

These people, in the course of peer review, were able to successfully pass the reliability check, which is often called by ordinary people "the fool test," and this happened because, in fact, there are enough fools there too. For example, one blogger submitted a comic paper about "midichlorians" (a fictional intelligent microscopic life form that is inside all living things, according to the Star Wars universe), and 4 scientific journals published it!

In an effort to remind people why they should not blindly trust "science" - or any other source that claims to be distributing knowledge - I decided to write this short article on how scientific nonsense has been used over the long years of our history to manipulate our perception and beliefs.

Major players in the tobacco and sugar industry

More than half a century ago, the big tobacco companies used science as a persuasion for the naive and gullible about the safety of their cigarettes.

Picture caption:

Trust me guys, you yourself will want to read this important new study on the effects of smoking. And then you, too, say, as I say: "I prefer soft Chesterfield cigarettes!"

Arthur Godfrey

And now …. scientific research on the effects of smoking!

2 times a month, a medical specialist conducted a regular examination of a group of people from different segments of the population. 45% of the members of this group smoke Chesterfield cigarettes for an average of 10 years. After 10 months, the health care professional noted that after smoking Chesterfield cigarettes, there were no side effects on the nose, throat or sinuses of the control group.

The mild Chesterfield variety suits everyone

April 1953

Pay attention to the key phrase: "Research"

A number of different medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), were actually funded by large tobacco firms and helped to promote these products through the sale of let's say "science".

Picture caption:

Research report of a group of doctors

Men and women who complain of nasal and throat irritation due to smoking were advised to switch to Philip Morris cigarettes. Then, day after day, doctors monitored each case. The final results, published in reputable medical journals, universally confirm that after switching to Philip Morris cigarettes, mucosal irritation has completely stopped, or significant improvements have been noticed."

Notice the key persuasion phrase above the ad: "The final results, published in reputable medical journals, widely confirm that after switching to Philip Morris cigarettes, mucosal irritation completely stopped or significant improvements were seen."

Likewise, in the 1960s, the sugar industry recruited a group of Harvard scientists to hide the relationship between sugar consumption and heart disease, and the International Sugar Research Foundation (ISRF) silenced research findings that showed that sugar could potentially increase risk of developing bladder cancer.

Something we need to figure out for ourselves, my friends, is that our society is universally governed as if it were a commercial firm, not a charitable organization, which is primarily intended to value human life. This means that any professional, whatever profession you may take, can be easily bribed with the help of money. Unfortunately, our problems are systemic, and their roots lie in this deeply damaged paradigm.

The manipulation of science continues to this day

Here's a recent history: The Bush administration has been seen manipulating science to adapt it to its own government policies. Likewise, the big oil companies bribed scientists to repeat their claims like parrots. Likewise, biotech giant Monsanto and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been caught collaborating in a similarly unethical manner. And this is not the first time for Monsanto - and they did not disdain such things before. In Canada, a group of scientists confirmed that the giant GMO manufacturer offered them a bribe of $ 1-2 million, and in Indonesia, the company was fined for attempting to bribe a government official. Another biotech giant, Syngenta, has attracted scientists to discredit Professor Tyrone Hayes, who is leading a study that found Syngenta's herbicide Atrazine could have harmful effects on human health. Two scientists have filed a lawsuit against Merck, alleging that the large pharmaceutical firm had rigged test results about the effectiveness of their mumps vaccine.

The Coca-Cola digger was also caught bribing scientists (a rather big sum of $ 132.8 million) in order to mitigate the severity of the consequences of drinking soda and other unhealthy foods. In fact, corporations do this all the time. A great example: a study by the University of Colorado that claims diet soda is more conducive to weight loss than regular water. Unsurprisingly, this study was funded by soda makers.

Picture caption:

Scientists say diet sodas are more conducive to weight loss than water

Another study found that children who eat candy weigh less than children who don't eat sweets, which means that those with a sweet tooth are less likely to be obese. Once again, much to our surprise, we discover that the study was funded by a trade association representing sweet giants such as Butterfingers, Hershey and Skittles.

Picture caption:

New research confirms that children and adolescents who eat candy are lighter and less likely to be obese.

June 28, 2011. Source: National Confectioners Association

Conclusion

To this day, controversial activities under the guise of science continue. Richard Hortin, editor-in-chief of the medical journal The Lancet, has officially stated that "most of the scientific literature, perhaps even half, may be downright false."

Not to mention, the concept of science does not serve an important purpose. Although in fact it does serve. Personally, I use scientific methods and principles every day of my life, and even relied on scientific research to highlight the corruption of the scientific community in this blog. But this article was written specifically to remind us that "science" can be used to mislead us - and has long been used to deceive - and therefore scientific findings are always worth questioning and rechecking. Of course, scientists need money to conduct research, and corporations that value material gain over human life have a dime a dozen of money. But the hand of the giver usually controls the hand of the taker.

Until we devise a system that rewards incorruptible education more than propaganda and ignorance, and honest rewards more than wanting to do anything for money, this type of pathetic and contemptuous human behavior will, for obvious reasons,, continue to exist.