There are 67 controlled studies of Ivermectin’s effect on COVID-19 that show a 67% improvement in COVID patients. There are 298 Hydroxychloroquine studies that show a 64% improvement in patients for COVID-19 patients. Despite the science, Dr. Fauci and the medical elites have blocked the use of these effective treatments for coronavirus patients. Fauci and other top US medical leaders were in on the hydroxychloroquine lie that smeared the treatment as being ineffective and dangerous. Jeremy Farrar, director of Wellcome Trust and a WHO advisory group, was involved in two large hydroxychloroquine trials that used extreme doses that killed about 500 people and was used to sink the use of the drug for COVID.Documents stored on the computers of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) prove that the medicines Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine and Interferon were proven “Curative” for COVID-19 in April, 2020, but the cures were buried as “Top Secret.”
Despite the science, Dr. Fauci and the medical elites have blocked the use of these effective treatments for coronavirus patients.
Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccines, accused Dr. Fauci and others of lying and causing the death of over 500,000 Americans by preventing HCQ and Ivermectin, and other treatments from COVID-19 patients.
Dr. Malone is right. It is well documented that Dr. Fauci and top US doctors conspired to disqualify and condemn hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment. Millions died as a result of this.
As TGP reported earlier — It wasn’tjust Fauci but all of the top US medical leaders who were in on the hydroxychloroquine lie.
Dr. Meryl Nass, MD, broke this story in The Defender. According to Dr. Nass, the top health officials were all in on the conspiracy against hydroxychloroquine.
auci runs the NIAID, Collins is the NIH director (nominally Fauci’s boss) and Farrar is director of the Wellcome Trust. Farrar also signed the Lancet letter. And he is chair of the WHO’s R&D Blueprint Scientific Advisory Group, which put him in the driver’s seat of the WHO’s Solidarity trial, in which 1,000 unwitting subjects were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine in order to sink the use of that drug for COVID.
Farrar had worked in Vietnam, where there was lots of malaria, and he had also been involved with SARS-1 there. He additionally was central in setting up the UK Recovery trial, where 1,600 subjects were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine.
Even if Farrar didn’t have some idea of the proper dose of chloroquine drugs from his experience in Vietnam, he, Fauci and Collins would have learned about such overdoses after Brazil told the world about how they mistakenly overdosed patients in a trial of chloroquine for COVID. The revelation was made in an article published in the JAMA in mid-April 2020. Thirty-nine percent of the subjects in Brazil who were given high doses of chloroquine died, average age 50.
Yet the Solidarity and Recovery hydroxychloroquine trials continued into June, stopping only after their extreme doses were exposed.
Fauci made sure to control the treatment guidelines for COVID that came out of the NIAID, advising against both chloroquine drugs and ivermectin. Fauci’s NIAID also cancelled the first large-scale trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment in early disease, after only 20 of the expected 2,000 subjects were enrolled.
What does all this mean?
There was a conspiracy between the five authors of the Nature paper and the heads of the NIH, NIAID and Wellcome Trust to cover up the lab origin of COVID.
There was a conspiracy involving Daszac, Fauci and others to push the natural origin theory. (See other emails in the recent drop.)
There was a conspiracy involving Daszac to write the Lancet letter and hide its provenance, to push the natural origin theory and paint any other ideas as conspiracy theory. Collin’s blog post is another piece of this story.
Farrar was intimately involved in both large hydroxychloroquine overdose trials, in which about 500 subjects total died.
Farrar, Fauci and Collins withheld research funds that could have supported quality trials of the use of chloroquine drugs and ivermectin and other repurposed drugs that might have turned around the pandemic.
Are the four individuals named here — Fauci, Daszak, Collins and Farrar — intimately involved in the creation of the pandemic, as well as the prolongation and improper treatments used during the pandemic?
In his article, Horgan rightly points out that today’s so-called “science skeptics” are little more than dogmatic tribal cultists (my words, not Horgan’s) who celebrate “skeptical” thinking concerning their selected philosophical targets while vehemently denying anyone’s right to question their own beliefs on things like breast cancer screening, vaccine safety, global warming and genetically engineered foods.
As Horgan eloquently explains in his piece, real skeptics are skeptical of everything, not just selected topics that are targeted by the madness of status quo science crowds (i.e. the “cult of scientism”).
Real skepticism means questioning everything… especially the status quo
A real skeptic, in other words, would bring critical thinking to all of our science narratives and cultural beliefs, including those that cover the origin of the universe (cosmology), the origin of the human species, the nature of consciousness, the long history of indigenous botanical medicine, the cancer industry and mammography, homeopathy, antidepressant drugs, water filters, the existence of God and everything else imaginable. But far too many of today’s infamous “skeptics” (such as Richard Dawkins) are really just cultists who labor under the false banner of “science.” And they’re offensive to real critical thinkers, it turns out.
“I don’t hang out with people who self-identify as capital-S Skeptics. Or Atheists. Or Rationalists,” explains Horgan. “When people like this get together, they become tribal. They pat each other on the back and tell each other how smart they are compared to those outside the tribe. But belonging to a tribe often makes you dumber.”
I’ve seen this myself, on both ends of the medicine spectrum. I’ve seen insanely stupid pharmacology experts swear that statin drugs are such miraculous chemicals that they should be dripped into the public water supply. But I’ve also seen “raw foodies” at festivals swearing that their “water vortexer machines” could levitate water in defiance of the laws of gravity.
In both cases, my critical thinking alarms go haywire, and I shake my head in disbelief that so many people are so gullible, regardless of their level of academic education or technical mastery of certain subjects. A highly trained doctor with an IQ of 200 can be just as functionally stupid as a high school dropout, I’ve observed. In fact, when it comes to medicine and health, many so-called “experts” are so ignorant of reality that they almost seem cognitively retarded.
My experience as a food research scientist has taught me to distrust everything by default
As a food scientist and lab science director of CWC Labs where I conduct food analysis via ICP-MS, LC/MS-TOF and other instruments, I’ve become even more skeptical of the mainstream natural products industry over the last few years.
Take note of the massive scam of commercial almond milk sold in grocery stores. Such products contain almost no almonds at all. Instead, they’re thickened with carageenan and made to look milky white by the addition of an inorganic mineral compound called calcium carbonate — ground up rocks! This calcium carbonate, when consumed in large quantities, can cause extreme bone pain, kidney calcification and may even contribute to the calcification of arteries. Yet it’s added to a so-called “natural” health product that people are drinking in huge quantities while thinking they’re being smart about their health. Truth be told, you’d be far better off drinking raw, unpasteurized cow’s milk than commercial almond milk.
I’ve also seen so much pollution in “natural” products — including toxic heavy metals and alarming quantities of pesticides and herbicides in supposedly “clean” products — that I’ve reached the point where my own food manufacturing operation now rejects 80% of the raw material lots we test. (See my upcoming book Food Forensics for detailed ICP-MS analysis revealing the heavy metals concentrations in over 800 foods, supplements and spices.)
Similarly, I find myself rejecting 80% of the total B.S. science nonsense reported by the scientifically illiterate mainstream media… (and sometimes even the “science” media). I’ve literally seen seemingly credible reports in the mainstream media that claim the most ludicrous science nonsense, including claims that cars can be “powered” by air and that cell phones can be “powered” by water. The air powered cars stories always neglect to mention that the air must be pressurized by some other energy source; usually coal-generated electricity that’s used to power the compressors in the first place.
I’ve also seen the Associated Press falsely report that all mercury has been removed from all vaccines in America (blatantly false), and I’ve seen the obedient Monsanto-puppet media (i.e. Forbes.com, a propaganda rag steeped in utterly false journalism) report ridiculous claims such as asserting that glyphosate disintegrates quickly in the food supply. In truth, this cancer-causing weed killer survives food processing and human digestion, showing up in both urine and breast milk, fully intact in its original molecular form.
So why is there no skepticism among “skeptics” about the food chain persistence of pesticides? The false diagnosis hoax of mammography? The lunatic quack medicine diagnosis of “psychiatric disorders” that are treated with mind-bending psychiatric drugs? Or even the scientifically proven fact that some children are seriously harmed by certain vaccines, most notably HPV vaccines?
As Horgan writes in Scientific American:
“The Science Delusion” is common among Capital-S Skeptics. You don’t apply your skepticism equally. You are extremely critical of belief in God, ghosts, heaven, ESP, astrology, homeopathy and Bigfoot. You also attack disbelief in global warming, vaccines and genetically modified food… Meanwhile, you neglect what I call hard targets. These are dubious and even harmful claims promoted by major scientists and institutions. In the rest of this talk, I’ll give you examples of hard targets from physics, medicine and biology. I’ll wrap up with a rant about war, the hardest target of all.
Real scientists reject the cult of scientism
What Horgan is doing is, dare we say, exercising REAL scientific skepticism. He’s refusing to sign up for the “cult of scientism” that all the other closed-minded skeptics obediently follow as their dogmatic mental prison.
Horgan understands that legitimate science is a process, not a belief system. “Science” isn’t belief in vaccines, GMOs, chemotherapy and global warming. Those are conclusions, not processes. Real science is a process of discovery; and that process must be subjected to questioning and criticism, or it isn’t science at all.
Let me repeat that for emphasis: Real science is a PROCESS, not a set of conclusions. Any “scientific” belief system which rejects critical questioning isn’t based in real science at all. It’s just dogma.
This explains why the entire vaccine industry — as it is fraudulently promoted today — isn’t scientific at all. Vaccine propaganda is founded in a dogmatic belief system that demands absolute obedience to political vaccine narratives while rejecting even the slightest questions or criticisms about vaccine ingredients, vaccine safety, vaccine adverse events or vaccine efficacy.
For example, merely asking the question of why flu shots still contain over 50,000 ppb mercury — that’s over 25,000 times the EPA limit of mercury in drinking water — earns you widespread ridicule and condemnation. And yet the mercury is still being injected into children. Yet the entire vaccine propaganda establishment rejects even the hint of discussion of mercury in vaccines, pretending it doesn’t exist.
The vaccine establishment, as Natural News readers well know, is practicing delusional thinking masquerading as science. It’s just as delusional as so-called “psychic surgeons” who claim to pull diseased liver parts out of a patient’s body (which later turn out to be chicken livers, go figure…). Any real skeptic, upon observing the quackery, propaganda and blatant deception of the vaccine industry, would have to conclude that the way vaccines are formulated, approved and promoted today makes a mockery of science.
More “science” B.S. is readily found in the fields of physics and medicine, too
Speaking on the subject of computing and AI systems, Horgan explains, “The Singularity is an apocalyptic cult, with science substituted for God. When high-status scientists promote flaky ideas like the Singularity and multiverse, they hurt science. They undermine its credibility on issues like global warming.”
Of course, Horgan may not yet understand that belief in man-made global warming as the primary cause for rising CO2 levels is also based on a politicized science cult. But that’s not even the point. I don’t expect other scientists to arrive at the same conclusions I’ve reached. What I do expect, however, is that scientists should honor the process of critical scientific thinking. If they honor the process, they will eventually reach the correct conclusions on subjects such as man-made global warming, vaccine safety problems, the total con job of statin drugs and so on.
On medicine, Horgan nails it. He gets the fact that today’s medical screening system is largely a fraud:
Over the past half-century, physicians and hospitals have introduced increasingly sophisticated, expensive tests. They assure us that early detection of disease will lead to better health.
But tests often do more harm than good. For every woman whose life is extended because a mammogram detected a tumor, up to 33 receive unnecessary treatment, including biopsies, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. For men diagnosed with prostate cancer after a PSA test, the ratio is 47 to one. Similar data are emerging on colonoscopies and other tests.
He’s also right on the mark when it comes to psychiatric drugs and their fraudulent marketing:
Over the last few decades, American psychiatry has morphed into a marketing branch of Big Pharma. I started critiquing medications for mental illness more than 20 years ago, pointing out that antidepressants like Prozac are scarcely more effective than placebos.
In retrospect, my criticism was too mild. Psychiatric drugs help some people in the short term, but over time, in the aggregate, they make people sicker.
He also exposes the total fraud of so-called “gene discoveries” that ridiculously claim genes have been discovered for things like gay-ness or intelligence:
Another hard target that needs your attention is behavioral genetics, which seeks the genes that make us tick. I call it gene-whiz science, because the media and the public love it.
Over the past several decades, geneticists have announced the discovery of “genes for” virtually every trait or disorder. We’ve had the God gene, gay gene, alcoholism gene, warrior gene, liberal gene, intelligence gene, schizophrenia gene, and on and on.
None of these linkages of single genes to complex traits or disorders has been confirmed. None!
Much of what you’re told today under the banner of “science” is complete bulls–t
Horgan has come to the same conclusion that I’ve reached through a different path: Much of what we are taught today under the banner of “science” is complete bunk. Some of it is sheer hucksterism, and a lot of it qualifies as criminal fraud.
At the top of that list of science frauds is, of course, vaccines. As I’ve exhaustively documented here on Natural News, many popular vaccines (flu shots, measles, mumps) simply don’t work at all. Shockingly, outright admissions of a complete lack of scientific testing of the efficacy of such vaccines is admitted on their insert sheets. The Flulaval vaccine insert sheet, for example, admits there are “No controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza” among people being injected with the vaccine.
Yet despite these extraordinary admissions of lack of efficacy, vaccine research fraud and the known toxicity of vaccine ingredients (which still include formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum and MSG), the systematic rejection of such evidence by vaccine promoting “science skeptics” borders on the fringe of mental illness. These are not scientists at all… they are con artists and criminals — like Poul Thorsen, a fugitive from justice who was once a CDC researcher — pretending to be scientists.
As a real scientist, I’ve dared to ask 21 questions we’re never allowed to ask about vaccines. Such questions are based on reason and rationality. They include commonsense questions such as, “If measles vaccines confer measles immunity, then why do already-vaccinated children have anything to fear from a measles outbreak?”
It is notable that the entire vaccine establishment not only refuses to answer such questions; they consider the mere act of questioning vaccine dogma to be blasphemy. The demand for absolute obedience to the false narratives surrounding vaccines has reached such a fever pitch that anyone can now see it’s no longer based in science at all. It is a kind of religious fervor put on by deranged zealots who claim an intellectual monopoly over all things related to vaccines. This phenomenon is, in a very real way, a “scientific dictatorship” — an apt oxymoron to describe today’s juxtaposition of conformist demands and so-called “scientific evidence.”
Hint: If you aren’t allowed to ask questions about the evidence, it isn’t evidence at all. It’s dogma, plain and simple. Vaccine proponents, as they operate today, are faith-based dogmatists who don’t need any legitimate evidence because they BELIEVE in vaccines. Their belief is so strong that it outweighs all evidence contrary to their current beliefs. And in case you didn’t notice, what I’ve just described here is a cult, not a science.
Vaccine “science” is a massive con job
The other huge con job found in vaccines is described thusly: Vaccines only “work” on those who don’t need them. In other words, when vaccines do work, they do so by initiating an immune response to a weakened virus that’s introduced into the body. This response requires an active and complex immune system that’s functioning well… the same kind of immune system, in other words, that could ward off an infection of a live virus encountered in the wild.
Meanwhile, people who have suppressed immune systems and are therefore extremely vulnerable to infections in the wild also happen to have extremely poor (and sometimes completely nullified) responses to vaccines. They don’t build antibodies, in other words, so the vaccines don’t work for them (they are non-efficacious).
In order to make vaccines “work” better on those with weakened immune systems, vaccine manufacturers add adjuvant chemicals that are irritants which cause excessive inflammation in the hope of eliciting a stronger immune response. While this may help some people, it also carries a very real risk of causing inflammatory damage to the neurology of some children who receive these vaccines. The results, as borne out by the vaccine adverse events databases and Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, is a growing number of children who are maimed, neurological damaged, put into comas or even killed by vaccines.
The entire “skeptics” cult of modern medicine denies any of this is happening, and that’s one reason why the skeptics are increasingly seen as high-functioning idiots who are possibly vaccine damaged themselves. Zealotous hate-bloggers like Doctor David Gorski — a psychopathic, mentally ill vaccine promoter who also carries out cancer surgery on African-American victims in Detroit — now characterize the skeptics cult, a cabal of mentally deranged lunatics and gay sex fetish seekers like James Randi who was caught on tape soliciting sex from a young man.
Richard Dawkins, for his part, is also an anti-consciousness cultist who believes in the irrational dualism that no other humans on this planet are conscious beings other than himself. Everybody else, he claims, is an unconscious biological robot suffering under the illusion of self awareness.
Meet three real scientists we need to empower to ask more questions of the scientific establishment
What kind of people do we really need to see more of in the realm of scientific skepticism? People like Rupert Sheldrake, author of Science Set Free. Sheldrake’s work is transformative, as it challenges the underlying non-scientific assumptions of modern science.
We also need more people like Gilbert Welch, author of Less Medicine, More Health. This book challenges the seven false assumptions of modern medicine.
The other thing we need, quite frankly, is independent scientists like myself who are conducting cutting edge, truly independent science, without any financial ties to governments, corporations or academia. My science lab, which has now passed our ISO 17025 accreditation audit, is free to pursue precisely the kind of scientific analysis of food and medicine that is blackballed or censored in the government-funded scientific community. Other scientists would lose their jobs if they pursued the kind of science I’m pursuing on a daily basis with absolute freedom.
Notably, this makes me a rare practitioner of real, independent science and a protector of the very kind of independent skepticism and scientific analysis that should be embraced by any system of knowledge that’s based on legitimate science. Yet the science I’m conducting is widely considered a threat to the scientific establishment, precisely because I’m willing to analyze vaccines for heavy metals and organic chemicals, for example. Such research is simply not allowed by the cult of scientism (the vaccine zealots) because they depend on widespread ignorance of vaccine composition to continue parlaying their fraudulent lies about vaccine safety.
I honor scientists who pursue a rigorous process of critical thinking… and I despise obedient status quo cultists
John Horgan might not yet be aware of the full story on vaccines, so he might disagree with me on such conclusions. But that’s not the point. I honor Horgan’s commitment to asking big questions. In fact, I honor those who vehemently disagree with me as long as they are following a process of authentic inquiry and open-minded skepticism.
What I despise is science cultists, dogmatic science propagandists and the worship of the “high priests” of science such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who can only be described as a “sciency” sleight-of-mind huckster who has more in common with stage illusionist David Copperfield than, say, Richard Feynman.
Tyson, like Dawkins, is a cultist. He has zero intellectual integrity and has sold out to the tribal dogmatists who spin tall tales of irrational mysticism that currently pass for “accepted science.”
For my part, I don’t claim to have all the answers — no human mind can possibly dare to claim a full understanding of the mysteries of nature (or the mind of God, for that matter). But as a real scientist, I’m willing to skeptically explore the evidence on just about anything. I don’t reject entire fields of scientific inquiry merely because they are taboo. It doesn’t mean I’m a sucker for silly claims, just that I’m intelligent and humble enough to realize that nature is far more mysterious than any human mind can possibly grasp. And we have much more to learn… many more scientific discoveries to make in the years ahead.
For example, psychic phenomena are often called “paranormal.” But what if they are so commonplace that they’re actually normal? Why can’t we study things like pets somehow anticipating the random arrivals of their owners many minutes in advance? Or mothers having a seemingly intuitive emotional connection to their children even when separated by distance? Why can’t we study dream premonition? Consciousness after biological death? Or even the possibility that the brain is a “quantum antenna” that can receive information transmitted from other conscious sources, transmitted by a quantum entanglement mechanism that Einstein described as “spooky action at a distance?”
If we are true scientists, we must at least BE CURIOUS about the nature of the universe and the apparent consciousness we seem to experience inside that universe. The minute we lose curiosity and decide we have all the answers, we cease being scientists at all. At that point, we just become mentally incapacitated dogmatic fools… like Dawkins and Randi, two people whom history will judge as being not just unwise hucksters, but even for slowing the progress of human knowledge into realms of understanding that are viciously attacked by “skeptics” today.
I often wonder just how many people have died needlessly due to the malicious “skepticism” of info-terrorist David Gorski or the Quackwatch propagandist Stephen Barrett. How many cases of cancer could have been prevented or reversed by natural and complementary medicine? How many studies might have been conducted in the pursuit of natural cures if not for the vicious, aggressive assaults on scientific curiosity being waged by “cult of scientism” intellectual bigots?
We’ll never know the answer to that question, but at least a few people like John Horgan are willing to start asking some legitimate questions about the false assumptions of “skeptics.” Have no doubt that Horgan himself will be maliciously slandered, attacked, defamed, censored and lied about for daring to ask such questions. The one thing today’s bulls–t scientific establishment cannot tolerate is actual skepticism. It threatens the cultist beliefs of the faithful “scientism” worshippers, you see…
The cull comes after similar discoveries of ‘fake peer review’ by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing “reviews from fabricated reviewers”. The practice can occur when researchers submitting a paper for publication suggest reviewers, but supply contact details for them that actually route requests for review back to the researchers themselves.
The Springer investigation began in November 2014 after a journal editor-in-chief noticed irregularities in contact details for peer reviewers. These included e-mail addresses that the editor they suspected were bogus but were accompanied by the names of real researchers, says William Curtis, executive vice-president for publishing, medicine and biomedicine at Springer. The investigation, which focused on articles for which authors had suggested their own reviewers, detected numerous fabricated peer-review reports. Affected authors and their institutions have been told about the investigation’s findings, says Curtis.
Springer declined to name the articles or journals involved. However, a search of the publisher’s website identified more than 40 retraction notices dated between 17 and 19 August 2015 for articles in 8 Springer journals.
Springer now plans to vet peer-reviewer suggestions more carefully, Curtis says. Its journals may in future request the supply of institutional e-mail addresses or Scopus author IDs for reviewers.
When BioMed Central uncovered its peer-review problem, senior editor for research integrity Elizabeth Moylan noted that some of the issues seemed to involve companies that charge scientists to edit their manuscripts and help them with journal submission. Curtis says that Springer has “limited evidence” to implicate such third parties in some of the cases it uncovered.
Some publishers, such as BioMed Central and San Francisco-based PLoS, have ended the practice of author-suggested reviewers in response to fake peer review. But Elizabeth Wager, a publication consultant and former chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), says that “less drastic” measures, such as double-checking non-institutional e-mail addresses given for reviewers, would allow journals to hold on to the expertise that these reviewers often provide.
“The particular problem of fake review comes about when authors are allowed to suggest possible peer reviewers,” says Wager. “The system sounds good. The trouble is when people game the system and use it as a loophole.”
The involvement of third-party companies in bogus peer review is “more worrying”, Wager adds, because it could mean that the practice is more systemic and extends beyond a handful of rogue authors.
Virginia Barbour, the current chair of COPE, says that Springer has informed the committee about the investigation. “It is important publishers take rapid but careful action, as here,” she says.
A ‘monster’ virus which has lain dormant in the frozen wastelands of northeastern Russia is about to be resurrected by researchers curious of its potential effects.
Scientists anticipate “reanimating” a 30,000-year-old virus to learn more about it and discover if it is harmful to animals or humans. Mollivirus sibericum, which translates to soft Siberian virus, has been dubbed “Frankenvirus” by many who are in opposition of the quest to bring it back to life.
In contrast to other viruses, the soft Siberian bug is a monster. Not only does it have 523 genetic proteins and measures 0.6 microns, it can also be seen using light microscopy.
As BBC News reports, the Mollivirus sibericum virus is the fourth prehistoric virus to have been discovered since 2003, and experts warn climate change and thawing ice could resurrect similar – and perhaps even more dangerous – pathogens.
The French National Center for Scientific Research made the discovery in the Kolyma lowland region of Russia. The soft Siberian virus is the second of its kind to be found by the team. In 2003, researchers discovered the Minivirus, followed by the Pandoraviruses in 2013, and Pithovirus sibericum which was discovered last year.
The saga of giant viruses started in 2003. Two additional types of giant viruses have been discovered [and] we now describe Mollivirus sibericum, a fourth type of giant virus isolated from the same permafrost sample. These four types of giant virus exhibit different structures, sizes, genome length, and replication cycles. Their origin and mode of evolution are the subject of conflicting hypotheses. The fact that two different viruses could be easily revived from prehistoric permafrost should be of concern in a context of global warming.
The regions in which these mega microbes are being discovered are being increasingly exploited for their mineral resources, especially oil. As Upriser shares, the rate at which they are exploited will no doubt increase as the areas become more accessible due to melting ice and climate change.
Said lead researcher Jean-Michel Claverie:
A few viral particles that are still infectious may be enough, in the presence of a vulnerable host, to revive potentially pathogenic viruses. If we are not careful, and we industrialize these areas without putting safeguards in place, we run the risk of one day waking up viruses such as small pox that we thought were eradicated.
That’s definitely concerning.
In the lab, Professor Claverie and his team will attempt to resurrect the newly discovered virus by placing it with a single-cell amoeba, which will serve as its host. The virus Pithovirus sibericum was revived in March 2014 using similar techniques.
Research has been carried out, and according to co-author Dr Chantal Abergel, the virus “comes into the cell, multiplies and finally kills the cell. It is able to kill the amoeba – but it won’t infect a human cell.”
Still, a lot of controversy surrounds the scientists plan to “revive” the Mollivirus sibericum virus. Different than most viruses circulating today, these ancient pathogens are not only bigger, they’re far more complex genetically.
The recently discovered virus has more than 500 genes, and the Pandoravirus found in 2003 has 2,500. Compare that to the Influenza A virus which has eight genes.
Of course, a philosophical debate will not deter scientists from doing their work, but a number of pros and cons deserve to be weighed before further research is conducted.
Researchers from the States traveled to Alaska to take frozen lung tissues from a woman who was buried in permafrost, and teased genetic details out of the samples and from autopsy issues stored in formalin. Their work allowed the team to reconstruct the code for the virus’ eight genes – but at what cost? All the work was done in a top-security lab at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), yet still wasn’t contained.
We have to ask ourselves as an informed public – and voice our concerns to those ‘in charge’ – if “reviving” a monster virus and is really in the best interest of the public.
2014 had its fair share of landmark scientific accomplishments: dramatic cuts to the cost of sequencing a genome; sweeping investigations of climate change impacts in the US; advances in private-sector space travel, and plenty more. But there was also no shortage of high-profile figures eager to publicly and shamelessly denounce well-established science—sometimes with serious consequences for public policy. So without further ado, the most egregious science denial of 2014: Basically everything said by Donald Trump:
In September, Trump went on a Twitter screed linking vaccines to autism. A month earlier, he fanned the flames of unscientific Ebola panic when he objected to efforts to bring American health care workers infected with the virus back the the US for treatment. “The U.S. cannot allow EBOLA infected people back,” he tweeted. “People that go to far away places to help out are great-but must suffer the consequences!” Health care experts, meanwhile, insisted that the risk was minimal; the two patients Trump was talking about were ultimately brought back to the US and successfully treated without infecting anyone else. Let’s just stick to real estate and beauty pageants, Donald, shall we? Unnecessary Ebola quarantines:
Reporters and state police keep watch outside of nurse Kaci Hickox’s house in Maine. Robert F. Bukaty/AP
Republican Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas took his opposition to basic science straight to the source: The grant-writing archives of the National Science Foundation. In an unprecedented violation of the historic firewall between the lawmakers who set the NSF’s budget and the top scientists who decide where to direct it, Smith’s researchers pulled the files on at least 47 grants that they believed were not in the “public interest.” Some of the biggest-ticket projects they took issue with related to climate change research; the committee apparently intended to single out these projects as examples of the NSF frittering money away on research that won’t come back to benefit taxpayers. The investigation is ongoing, and the precedent it sets—that scientific research projects are only worthwhile if they directly benefit the American economy—is unsettling. Battles over Texas textbooks:
Citizens gathered outside a 2010 Texas State Board of Education meeting to protest changes to the state’s social studies standards. Larry Kolvoord/Austin American-Statesman/AP
The Texas Board of Education has long been a hotbed for science denial, as conservative activists and a handful of textbook reviewers have sought to influence textbook-writing standards in an effort to muddle the basic science around issues such as evolution and climate change. What happens within the pages of Texas textbooks matters because the publishing market there is among the nation’s largest; what gets printed in Texas is likely to wind up in classrooms nationwide. Early this year advocates for better textbook oversight won a victory when the board announced it would give teachers’ input priority in determining curricula. But by September, the battle was back on, with a raft of revisions that contained obvious biases against mainstream climate science—one McGraw-Hill textbook inaccurately claimed that scientists “do not agree on what is causing the change,” and a Pearson text similarly alluded to scientific disagreement. Bowing to public pressure, in November Pearson altered its text to more accurately reflect the scientific consensus on climate change, but the McGraw-Hill text still portrays climate science as an open debate. Meanwhile, a parallel battle played out in Oklahoma over new standards to improve climate science education. Bill Nye schools creationist Ken Ham; John Holdren schools Congress:
Veteran science educator Bill Nye’s live-streamed takedown of outspoken creationist Ken Ham was perhaps the year’s most amazing barrage of scientific badassery. Nye piled on the evidence for why the Earth can’t possibly be just a few thousand years old (as Ham believes) and why the fossil record does, in fact, prove the theory of evolution. That spectacle was followed by another killer takedown, as White House science adviser John Holdren explained elementary school-level concepts related to climate change to members of the House Science Committee:
Science denial on Capitol Hill is set to get even crazier next year. When Democrats (and environmentalists) got a sound whooping in the midterm elections, a new caucus of climate change-denying senators swept in. Almost every new Republican senator has taken a position against mainstream climate science, ranging from hardline denial to cautious skepticism. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the incoming majority leader, has vowed to make forcing through an approval of the Keystone XL pipeline his top agenda item in the new year; he also wants to block the Obama administration’s efforts to reign in carbon pollution from coal plants. And the incoming chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is none other than James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who actually believes that global warming is a hoax orchestrated by Barbra Streisand. You can’t make this stuff up. “I’m not a scientist”:
A Hobby Lobby location in Stow, Ohio. DangApricot/Wikimedia Commons
The year’s biggest court battle over reproductive rights, in which the craft store Hobby Lobby objected to the Obamacare requirement that it provide contraceptive coverage for its employees, was premised on terrible science. The company’s owners, who have a religious objection to abortion, claimed that intrauterine devices and the “morning-after” pills Ella and Plan B cause abortions. But scientists say that these methods of contraception work by preventing pregnancy; they don’t result in abortion. If it’s not surprising that Hobby Lobby’s owners would come out against the science, it is a surprise that conservative justices on the Supreme Court would back them up, despite ample testimony from leading gynecologists. As Molly Redden reports, battles over science denial in reproductive rights are only going to heat up in 2015.
Lawrence LeBlond for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online
Alan Alda, 76, an actor who is best known for his portrayal of Capt. Benjamin Franklin “Hawkeye” Pierce on the television show MASH, has also long been involved in science, playing a key role in the founding of the Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University, where he is a visiting professor. Alda last year kicked of a whirlwind contest by asking a simple question: “What is a flame?”
That question heralded the responses of more than 800 people, trying to explain a complex phenomenon in terms that would be easily comprehensible for an 11-year-old student. The query did not come about by chance, but had been kicking around inside Alda’s head since he was that 11-year-old boy wondering what a flame was and how it worked. The inspiration for the question, and the contest, derived from a disappointing encounter he had with a teacher all those years ago.
“I was 11 and I was curious. I had been thinking for days about the flame at the end of a candle. Finally, I took the problem to my teacher. ‘What’s a flame?’ I asked her. ‘What’s going on in there?’ There was a slight pause and she said, ‘It’s oxidation.’ She didn’t seem to think there was much else to say,” he wrote in a guest editorial in the journal Science in March.
Alda said the encounter was discouraging, and after decades of letting it sit in his mind, he decided it was time to get to the bottom of the flame conundrum.
After the huge success of that contest, which employed the minds of 6,000 11-year-old judges, Alda is up to it again. This time, he is asking “What is time?”
However, this year’s query had not come from a previous personal experience from Alda’s collective. Instead, the question was picked from more than 300 submissions by 11-year-olds across the country. The “What is time?” question comes from Sydney Allison, a sixth-grader at Gromm Elementary School in Reno, Nevada.
Entries for this year’s conundrum can be submitted until March 1, 2013. The winner will receive a trophy, a trip to the 2013 World Science Festival in NY and the satisfaction of educating not only sixth-graders, but the general public.
“This contest probably gives people the impression that it’s a teaching tool for kids,” Alda told Frank Eltman of the Associated Press. “That’s a happy by-product, but it really is a tool for scientists to take a complex question and explain it in a way the rest of us can understand.”
Alda, who has also been the longtime host of Scientific American Frontiers on PBS, said it is vital for society to have a better understanding of science, and said it’s up to scientists to better explain their work in layman’s terms.
“There’s hardly an issue we deal with today that isn’t affected by science,” Alda said. “I’ve even heard from a number of people in Congress that they often don’t understand what scientists are talking about when they go to Washington to testify, and these are the people who make the decisions about funding and policy.”
He said he has been confronted by many scientists who acknowledge they need to do a better job communicating.
“We see misinformation about scientific facts on a daily basis,” added Alda. “Sometimes you know so much about something you assume everybody else is as familiar as you are and you tend to speak in shorthand. Even other scientists may not understand what you are talking about if they are not an expert in your field.”
Why the Religious Fear–and Fight–Science… and Why it’s a Sad Mistake
by Ervin Laszlo on September 9, 2010
Religious people — and by this I mean people who are deeply committed to a religion and aspire to live in accordance with its scriptures — usually fear science: they suspect that science contradicts some of their cherished beliefs, beliefs they are asked to accept on faith. And because many believe that the best defense is offense, the religious often attack science and scientists, and widen the gulf that separates these branches of contemporary culture. This is regrettable, for throughout history every enduring culture embraced the best of its dominant religion, together with the rational and empirical ideas that made up the science of its time. The current gulf is all the more regrettable as it’s based on a fundamental misconception. Indeed, on two misconceptions: of the nature of religion, as well as of science.
The average religious person identifies the religion that he or she espouses with the doctrines of that religion. These are the sacred scriptures created by the founders and prophets of that religion. For the most part they are centuries old, and contain sayings, episodes, and injunctions that are said to come from a higher, superhuman authority.
If it is its doctrines that make up a religion, then there are reasons for the faithful to fear science, or at least a dominant (mis)conception of science (and the misguided souls who embrace that misconception). It’s always possible that science will fail to recognize that the sayings, episodes, and injunctions that make up the literal content of the doctrines come from an undisputable superhuman authority. Scientists are not disposed to accept claims on faith; they are trained to ask for proof — for empirical proof. If it’s not available, then they might say that the sayings, episodes and injunctions are unproven, and could be mistaken. In that case the religious would have good reason to fear science (or at least those who believe that science would pass judgment on the literal meaning of religious scriptures); their deepest convictions would be in question.
But this fear is unfounded. It’s based on a misconception of the true nature both of religion, and of science.
Religion doesn’t simply consist of the doctrines that make up its sacred scriptures. There is far more to religion than that. And it’s not the case that science would take religious doctrines at face value and pronounce their content either true or false. There is far more to science than that.
Both religion and science are sourced in human experience. True, they are sourced in a different kind of experience, and science can tell us that they are conveyed by a different hemisphere of the brain: religion is right-hemispheric, and science, left-hemispheric. Human experience encompasses both.
Religion is based on the right-hemispheric experience of its founders, saints, and prophets. These must have been deep and vivid experiences, for they had a remarkable power to affect the heart and the mind of those around them. The founders, and even more their disciples, sought to communicate the substance of these experiences. They did so in the language, and with the concepts of their time. Their followers made the mistake of taking the record of the experiences for the essence of the experiences. They mistook the letter of religion for its spirit.
True scientists would not confound the record of a religious experience with the meaning of that experience. They would not judge a religion by the literal veracity of the sayings, episodes, and injunctions contained in its doctrines; they would ask about their roots in lived experience. And they would seek to understand that experience.
Analyzing the nature and meaning of religious experience is not a threat to the religious. On the contrary, it can prove to be a support. Because when the deep religious experience is analyzed with the methods of a science, a remarkable finding comes to light. The religious experience has aspects and elements that make it consistent with the world scientists discover on the basis of empirical experience.
Strange? Perhaps, but it is so. Psychiatrists such as Stanislav Grof find that in meditative, prayerful, or otherwise altered states of mind and consciousness people have access to the kind of mystical or transcendent realities that make up the substance of all great religions. This doesn’t mean that science can “verify” the metaphysical reality of these visions and entities. To establish their reality is not simply to see whether they correspond to the entities and processes that make up the content of valid scientific theories. It calls for careful reasoning and a further development of our understanding of the perceptual and cognitive powers of the brain, and of the consciousness associated with it. This development is already under way — among other things, recent attempts to discover the quantum-receptivity of microtubules and other subneuronal arrays in the brain point to it. It appears that we can apprehend far more of the reality in which we are embedded than we had thought. In addition to its standard information-processing circuits, the brain has quantum-receptive capacities, picking up information that’s instantaneous, multidimensional, and “nonlocal.”
Work in this area is still in progress, but we can be reasonably certain already that there are aspects and planes of human experience that far transcend the limits of everyday experience. As Shakespeare remarked, there are more things in this world than you and I had ever conceived.
Entering on a plane that is deeper or higher than that of everyday experience is what the religious experience is all about. And trying to understand how we can connect with that plane is one of the most exciting tasks facing science today.
The sincere religious has nothing to fear from the genuine scientist. On the contrary, the religious and the scientist have much to learn from each other. Together they will achieve a better understanding of the deep reality that surrounds us, and grounds our own existence. Isn’t it time to begin to explore that reality together — instead of fearing and fighting each other?
While it may appear that infants are helpless creatures that only blink, eat, cry and sleep, one University of Missouri researcher says that studies indicate infant brains come equipped with knowledge of “intuitive physics.”
“In the MU Developmental Cognition Lab, we study infant knowledge of the world by measuring a child’s gaze when presented with different scenarios,” said Kristy vanMarle, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences in the College of Arts and Science. “We believe that infants are born with expectations about the objects around them, even though that knowledge is a skill that’s never been taught. As the child develops, this knowledge is refined and eventually leads to the abilities we use as adults.”
In a review of related scientific literature from the past 30 years, vanMarle and Susan Hespos of Northwestern University found that the evidence for intuitive physics occurs in infants as young as two months – the earliest age at which testing can occur. At that age, infants show an understanding that unsupported objects will fall and that hidden objects do not cease to exist. Scientific testing also has shown that by five months, infants have an expectation that non-cohesive substances like sand or water are not solid. In a previous publication, vanMarle found that children as young as 10 months consistently choose larger amounts when presented with two different amounts of food substance.
“We believe that infants are born with the ability to form expectations and they use these expectations basically to predict the future,” vanMarle said. “Intuitive physics include skills that adults use all the time. For example, when a glass of milk falls off the table, a person might try to catch the cup, but they are not likely to try to catch the milk that spills out. The person doesn’t have to consciously think about what to do because the brain processes the information and the person simply reacts. The majority of an adult’s everyday interactions with the world are automatic, and we believe infants have the same ability to form expectations, predicting the behavior of objects and substances with which they interact.”
While the intuitive physics knowledge is believed to be present at birth, vanMarle believes parents can assist skill development through normal interaction, such as playing and talking with the child and encouraging him/her to interact with objects.
“Despite the intuitive physics knowledge, a parent probably cannot do much to ‘get their child ahead’ at the infant stage, including exposing him or her to videos marketed to improve math or language skills,” vanMarle said. “Natural interaction with the child, such as talking to him/her, playing peek-a-boo, and allowing him/her to handle safe objects, is the best method for child development. Natural interaction with the parent and objects in the world gives the child all the input that evolution has prepared the child to seek, accept and use to develop intuitive physics.”
The study, “Physics for infants: characterizing the origins of knowledge about objects, substances and number,” is published in the January issue of WIREs Cognitive Science
There is an inner impulsion within the human being which is commonly interpreted as the engine that drives personal success, that earns credentials and accolades which result in magnificent acquisitions—the external more, more, more of which there is never enough to satisfy. For even when we have succeeded in meeting many or most of our outer goals there remains an awareness of an illusive “something,” an emptiness that is yet unfilled.
Is there any validity to this awareness? Is there something woven into the fundamental fabric of our being that urges us to seek fulfillment beyond the offerings of the external world? Affirmative evidence is offered by Andrew Newberg, M.D., in his book on brain science and the biology of belief, Why God Won’t Go Away:
“As Gene and I sifted through mountains of data on religious experience, ritual, and brain science, important pieces of the puzzle came together and meaningful patterns emerged. Gradually, we shaped a hypothesis that suggests that spiritual experience, at its very root, is intimately interwoven with human biology. That biology, in some way, compels the spiritual urge.”
According to both ancient and contemporary spiritual traditions, there is a passageway into an extended awareness of our true nature, that aspect of ourselves that can be accessed when the preoccupations of the conscious mind are quieted. As we enter through this passageway, we lift the veil that hides the inner paradise in which we truly live, move, and have our being. India’s great philosopher, Sri Aurobindo, aptly describes it this way:
“The full delight of being is intrinsic, self-existent, automatic; it cannot be dependent on things outside itself. In the spiritual knowledge of self, the first step is the discovery of the soul, the secret entity, the divine element within us.”
From this wisdom we can conclude that there is no permanent or ultimate fulfillment from anything outside of our essential Self, our soul-self. This leaves little wiggle room for us to postpone seeking out spiritual practices by which we may evolve an extended awareness of our at-onement with First Cause, which some call God, Brahma, Spirit, or no name at all.
Jill Bolte Taylor, a 37-year-old Harvard-trained neuroanatomist, experienced a massive stroke when a blood vessel exploded in the rational, time-oriented left side of her brain. Within a four-hour time span she lost the ability to walk, talk, read, or write. Her knowledge of how the brain works allowed her to recognize that she was having a stroke and seek immediate help. At the very outset of her eight-year recovery period, her consciousness shifted into the right brain where she experienced a state of nirvana, what she described as an extended awareness of herself being “at one with the Universe.” Andrew Newberg explains this extended awareness:
“… various key brain structures and the way information is channeled along neural pathways leads us to hypothesize that the brain possesses a neurological mechanism for self-transcendence.”
The degree to which we activate this innate capacity to self-transcend, so do we cultivate an extended awareness of the Self.
As we progress in self-transcendence, the sense of separation or involvement with the personal mind expands into an awareness of the unique emanation that each of us is as an individualized expression of the One Mind that is everywhere in its fullness. That which is happening cosmically begins to happen through us locally. In such a state of awareness the plenitude, beauty, peace, joy, bliss, compassion—these transcendent yet eminent qualities of being are activated within us. It is a process of awakening to our true nature which places us in harmony with the fundamental order of Existence. Modern Zen master Huang Po describes the ultimate state of being he calls One Mind in this way:
“All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but One Mind, beside which nothing exists. Only awake to the One Mind.”
This One Mind is the very life force that animates and sustains existence, the evolutionary impulse within the universe and each individual.
The personal mind—predominantly the left side of the brain—wants to figure out how all of this happens. The demand to know “how” is actually a delay tactic of the ego, a defense mechanism so that our sense of being a separate self doesn’t dissolve right on the spot! Self-transcendence is our birthright. Everything that we need is already within us, announcing itself through the inner impulsion to grow, develop and unfold. How do we cultivate an extended awareness of Self? First by an identity shift which acknowledges our at-onement with the One Mind. We then grow confidence in our capacity to become a fully enlightened being. As an enlightened being, we live from a state of cosmic consciousness, a conscious awareness of our oneness with all life.
When we consider current scientific studies of the brain relative to the field of quantum consciousness, the evolutionary possibilities for the individual and our global family are limitless. A genuine state of cosmic awareness expressing through an individual or a whole nation is distinguishable as scientific knowledge of life, life lived in attunement with cosmic laws. Living from such a state of consciousness holds the potential for governing our world by a kind of super-wisdom which results in cooperation rather than competition, in unity rather than division, in oneness rather than separation.
Quantum Consciousness, the Way to Reconcile Science & Spirituality
by KINGSLEY DENNIS on JULY 12, 2010
Human thought in the 21st century needs to work towards a new model that immerses the human being within a vibrant energetic universe. However, this need not demand that we throw away what we already have; rather, we can expand upon the tools that have brought us to our present position. There is an eastern proverb that roughly translates as: ‘You may ride your donkey up to your front door, but would you ride it into your house?’ In other words, when we have arrived at a particular destination we are often required to make a transition in order to continue the journey. In this sense we can be grateful to a vast knowledge base of scientific and religious thought for helping us to arrive at where we presently stand. Yet it is now imperative that we move forward. As Deepak Chopra suggested in his opening contribution to this Forum, how we move forward is likely to be centered in our understanding of consciousness.
Our physical apparatus is spectacular; consider that each of us carries around a 100 billion-cell bioelectric quantum computer that creates our realities, with almost all of its neurons established the day we were born. Still, this phenomenal ‘reality shaper’ has undergone monumental perceptual change over our evolutionary history. What is required, at this significant juncture, is again another catalyst of consciousness change. This may come about through discoveries in the field of quantum biology, and the idea, emphasized by Ervin Laszlo in his previous blogs, that the form of consciousness we possess is likely to be the result ofquantum coherence.
The human body is a constant flux of thousands of inter-reactions and processes connecting molecules, cells, organs, fluids, throughout the brain, body and nervous system. Up until recently it was thought that all these countless interactions operated in a linear sequence, passing on information much like a runner passing the baton to the next runner. However, the latest findings in quantum biology and biophysics have discovered that there is in fact a tremendous degree of coherence within all living systems. It has been found through extensive scientific investigation that a form of quantum coherence operates within living biological systems through what is known as biological excitations and biophoton emission. What this means is that metabolic energy is stored as a form of electromechanical and electromagnetic excitations. It is these coherent excitations that are considered responsible for generating and maintaining long-range order via the transformation of energy and very weak electromagnetic signals.
After nearly twenty years of experimental research, Fritz-Albert Popp put forward the hypothesis that biophotons are emitted from a coherent electrodynamic field within the living system. What this effectively means is that each living cell is giving off, and resonating with, a biophoton field of coherent energy. If each cell is emitting this field then the whole living system is, in effect, a resonating field—a ubiquitous non-local field. And since it is by the means of biophotons that the living system communicates, then there is near instantaneous intercommunication throughout. And this, claims Popp, is the basis for coherent biological organization—referred to as quantum coherence.
Biophysicist Mae Wan Ho has described how the living organism, including the human body, is “coherent beyond our wildest dreams” in that our bodies are constituted by a form of liquid crystal, which is an ideal transmitter of communication, resonance, and coherence. All living biological organisms continuously emit radiations of light that form a field of coherence and communication.
Moreover, biophysicists have discovered that living organisms are permeated by quantum wave forms. Ho informs us that,
…the visible body just happens to be where the wave function of the organism is most dense. Invisible quantum waves are spreading out from each of us and permeating into all other organisms. At the same time, each of us has the waves of every other organism entangled within our own make-up… (Ho, Mae-Wan, (1998) The Rainbow and the Worm: The Physics of Organisms. Singapore: World Scientific)
This incredible new discovery actually positions each living being within a non-local quantum field consisting of wave interferences (where bodies meet). Each person is thus not only in an emphatic relationship with each other but is also entangled with one another.
Neuroscience, quantum biology, and quantum physics are now beginning to converge to reveal that our bodies are not only biochemical systems but also sophisticated resonating quantum systems. These new discoveries show that a form of nonlocal connected consciousness has a physical-scientific basis. Further, it demonstrates that certain spiritual or transcendental states of collective Oneness have a valid basis within the new scientific paradigm.
If we are willing to step down from the donkey we will find that our new path ahead has a place for reconciling science and spirituality. We should focus on the best of both worlds: engage in cooperation, not in conflict and competition.