Pierre-Alain Bruchez –Off-Guardian Sept 6, 2025
The crisis in science that undermines research is widely underestimated, largely because irreproducible results, ideological bias, conflicts of interest, and fraud are typically discussed in isolation—without recognizing their cumulative impact and shared roots.
Scientists alone cannot resolve this. Citizen scrutiny is essential. But first, citizens should be informed.
Scientific fraud has become industrialized
Fraud is, by nature, elusive. Although improved detection tools (e.g. image duplication analysis) may struggle to catch current fraud, given how quickly fraudsters adapt, they nonetheless provide valuable insights into past misconduct.
Particularly troubling is the fact that fraud is no longer confined to isolated individuals, but is increasingly perpetrated by organized networks (see Richardson et al., The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly). The presence of fraudsters should not discredit an entire profession, but it remains the duty of each profession to expose and expel them.
The Replication Crisis
Many published results cannot be reproduced: this is the replication crisis. This is not necessarily due to fraud. In many fields, results are statistical: they can also be due to chance. For example, if you want to know whether a die is rigged, you roll it many times. If one face appears disproportionately often, you conclude it is biased.
However, it is not impossible that the die is fair and the result merely random. Typically, a result is accepted if the probability that it occurred by chance is less than an arbitrarily chosen threshold of 5% (although in some fields, such as particle physics, the threshold is set much lower).
Thus, in principle, one would expect 5% of statistical results to be false. In reality, it is much higher, especially due to publication bias. Spectacular results are more likely to be published, although they are also more likely to be statistical flukes.
As early as 2005, John Ioannidis demonstrated in his landmark paper Why Most Published Research Findings Are False that the proportion of false statistical results is far greater than 5%. A large-scale replication project in psychology confirmed that only a minority of results could be replicated. Oncology and biomedical research also show high replication failure rates. Surprisingly, no meta-study compares replication failure rates across disciplines. Why not launch a massive replication project across all fields?
The replication crisis has been recognized for years and is still not overcome. Yet, in principle, it could be drastically reduced quickly. Solutions exist. Journals must demand transparency: full data and methodology disclosure to enable replication. Methods and hypotheses should be preregistered to prevent post hoc hypothesis fishing. Articles should be accepted based on the relevance of the question and methodological rigor, not the results.
This reduces the incentive and ability to chase statistically spurious findings. The Center for Open Science offers tools to support this, but they are used in only a minority of publications.
Universities should replicate more studies, starting with the most important ones (to test the foundations of the discipline) and randomly among newly published results (to encourage researchers to be more rigorous by increasing the risk that their study will be checked). Students would gain valuable experience while providing a highly useful service. Replication is a powerful pedagogical tool.
Initiatives like those from the Center for Open Science promote replication but still operate on a modest scale compared to global research output. Replication status should be readily available when consulting a study, and journalists should systematically report it. Safeguards must also be implemented to prevent collusive validation fraud, where researchers complacently reproduce each other’s findings. All of this should be put into effect swiftly.
It is encouraging to see the growing number of initiatives aimed at tackling the replication crisis. Beyond the Center for Open Science mentioned earlier, notable examples include the Institute for Replication, Open Science NL, and the NIH’s Replication Initiative. Yet the impact of these initiatives remains modest compared to the magnitude of the replication crisis itself.
The scientific community’s lack of urgency in addressing the replication crisis is even more troubling than the crisis itself. Inertia? The deeper issue is that for too many scientists, truth-seeking is no longer the main priority. This is vividly illustrated by their increasing submission to authoritarian ideologies.
Ideological capture in universities reveals a deprioritization of truth-seeking, which also hinders efforts to overcome the replication crisis. Conversely, ideological capture has taken hold on already weakened ground—as illustrated by the replication crisis itself.
Ideological Capture
Major universities, especially in the U.S., have been captured by authoritarian ideologies. Willingly or not, researchers have often repeated claims they know are false. To expose this ideological grip, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose managed to publish deliberately absurd but politically correct papers (they present their work in a video). Boghossian had to resign from his university and co-founded the University of Austin, which positions itself as one of the few alternatives to universities captured by wokeism.
Another alternative is the Peterson Academy, created by Jordan Peterson. He famously refused to use compelled speech under a Canadian law, received threatening letters from his University of Toronto, and eventually resigned. Bret Weinstein, who opposed a day of absence during which whites were asked not to enter the university campus, was also forced to resign, along with his wife. Wokeism is increasingly spreading to European universities as well.
For instance, Professor Kathleen Stock resigned from her position at the University of Sussex in October 2021, after being subjected to intense harassment due to her views on biological sex and gender identity. These are just a few examples illustrating the power that wokeism has gained within universities.
Harassment of individuals deemed politically incorrect often arises from joint lobbying efforts involving certain students, administrative staff, and scientists. Not only can wokeism lead to the resignation of researchers or force the hiring of incompetent researchers (selected on criteria other than merit), but it can also impose or prohibit research or teaching topics, or bias the manner in which these topics are studied (for example, by banning the investigation of certain potential causes of a given phenomenon). Under these conditions, it is not surprising that many scientists prefer to assign the pursuit of truth only a secondary priority.
Within the scientific community, resistance is emerging. A chorus of academic voices rises, for example, in The War on Science, edited by Lawrence Krauss (see also an interview with Krauss presenting the book: Lawrence Krauss: The new war on science | UnHerd and conversations between Krauss and contributors to the book on the following site: The Origins Podcast). It remains unclear whether the most captured universities can be restored or must be replaced by new, healthier institutions.
A correction to the ideological grip on U.S. universities is long overdue. But the current Trump administration’s approach is crude and indiscriminate. It is not a restoration of balance, but the rise of right-wing authoritarianism, mirroring the abuses of wokeism. Two authoritarianisms reinforcing each other. Science in the U.S. is caught between them.
Ideological capture is most acute in North America, yet it is spreading elsewhere, notably in Europe (see, for example, France: Face à l’obscurantisme woke). Moreover, given the global nature of science, biased findings published by American universities within a given discipline end up contaminating that discipline worldwide— especially since many of the most prestigious institutions are located in North America and are ideologically captured (according to the 2025 U.S. College Free Speech Rankings by FIRE, Harvard University is this year’s bottom ranked school for free speech for the second year in a row).
Conflicts of Interest
Some researchers prioritize personal gain over truth in particularly egregious ways. For instance, 27 scientists published a letter in The Lancet labeling as “conspiracists” those who suggested COVID-19 might have leaked from a lab, thus censoring debate during the early pandemic phase.
At the time, several authors failed to disclose conflicts of interest, most notably Peter Daszak, who had worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (and was later chosen by the WHO as the sole American voice on its team for investigating the origin of the COVID-19).
I, and presumably most citizens, were unaware before the pandemic that artificially enhancing viruses through gain-of-function research was even taking place. This raises a troubling question: are there other procedures currently underway that pose serious risks, yet remain hidden from public scrutiny? What is the role of science journalism if it fails to inform the public about such dangers?
Why does it matter where COVID-19 came from (see Bret Weinstein: Why COVID-19 May Have Leaked from a Lab | Joe Rogan Experience and Where Did COVID-19 REALLY Come From? With Matt Ridley | TRIGGERnometry)?
First, knowing the origin of COVID-19 could have provided crucial insight into the virus’s properties at a time when it was still poorly understood, potentially guiding early prevention strategies more effectively.
Second, if COVID-19 originated from a lab, understanding the specifics of the accident could help us design safeguards more effectively. Third, ignoring the pandemic’s origin risks emboldening malicious actors: if nature is always blamed, then deliberate releases may go unnoticed and unpunished. Fourth, we owe it to the victims to find out what happened.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, censorship and demonization of those who questioned official narratives extended not only to the virus’s origin but also to the effectiveness and side effects of the measures taken, whether related to lockdowns, mask-wearing, vaccination, medication, and so forth.
The COVID-19 pandemic is far from the only instance in which conflicts of interest come into play. These conflicts often stem from private funding. Funders may influence researchers or simply select those most likely to produce desired outcomes. Facts typically do not speak for themselves. One study gave identical data to different researchers to test two hypotheses: their conclusions varied widely. Thus, choosing the right analyst can suffice to obtain the desired result.
Researchers can often make data say what they want, driven by ideological, financial or career motives.
A Broken Science Needs All of Us: Researchers, Journalists, and Citizens
The crisis in science has many facets, but one root cause: truth has often been relegated to the back seat. Many scientists continue to work rigorously and uphold the highest standards, but more and more scientists prioritize other goals over truth-seeking. Those are no longer true scientists.
Like other humans, researchers respond to incentives. They know that their careers depend on the quantity of articles they publish and how often they are cited, rather than on their true value. They play the game. When they review an article in a peer review process, they know they cannot truly assess the validity of its conclusions, unless there are obvious flaws.
They often lack the information needed to replicate the study, and in any case, they have more rewarding things to do. They play the game. They focus on publishing articles and disengage from the functioning of their university.
When an authoritarian ideology takes advantage of this to capture the institution, researchers submit to its demands. They play the game, just as they did when they tailored their research to secure funding. There are exceptions, but the majority of researchers play a game that no longer tends toward truth.
Yet we urgently need science to tackle major challenges, such as climate, energy and health. But science can only fulfill this role if it is restored. Truth-seeking must once again be its core value. The scientific method and freedom of speech should be restored.
Science still enjoys prestige thanks to past achievements. Our technological power proves we have understood something about how the world works. But these past achievements say nothing about the present state of science, nor about disciplines that do not lead to technology.
How to restore science? Despite promising initiatives, the scientific community has not overcome the crisis. This suggests a lack of capacity or collective will. The replication crisis persists despite available solutions. Worse, many scientists in elite U.S. universities align themselves with authoritarian ideologies.
Scientists will not save science unless citizens, who fund much of their research and may decide not to be misled by unscientific studies anymore, compel them to act. This crisis should not be allowed to continue.
Citizens must be informed. They will eventually be. But the sooner the better, so the damage can be repaired quickly.
Unfortunately, journalists often downplay the crisis to protect science’s reputation. In trying to shield it, they delay its restoration and discredit themselves. When the collapse can no longer be hidden, citizens will ask: “Why did you hide the elephant in the room for so long?” (for example, according to a study, 75% of Germans have never heard of the replication crisis). And they will not trust them anymore.
Journalists must speak out now, so help arrives early and science communicators are not swept away in a wave of discredit.
It would be useful to apply game theory to both the replication crisis and the ideological capture of universities. At first glance, it should be possible to change the rules of the game so that incentives align in a way that counters the replication crisis.
Countering the ideological capture of universities, however, appears to hinge more on raw power dynamics. It is important to identify the right leverage points. One such point may be breaking the cycle of virtue signaling by demonstrating that wokeism is not a virtue, but a performative distortion of it.
Speaking out can shatter the wall of silence and embolden others to do the same. The creation of new, healthy institutions can also trigger a snowball effect.
Avoiding Nihilism
The depth of the crisis can be dizzying, risking nihilism. Yet we have a compass: the scientific method works to approach truth. The problem is that “scientists” too often abandon it. We know what must be done. And we can trust disciplines and institutions that rigorously follow the scientific method.
Journalists must help, by not merely reporting results, but by also communicating the degree of scientific rigor behind them. To this end, we should attempt to develop an index measuring scientific rigor by discipline and university worldwide. However, we must ensure that the development of this index is not itself captured. This differentiated approach is essential, not only to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but to incentivize disciplines and universities to return to scientific rigor.
Sadly, the least rigorous fields often deal with human issues where bias is both more tempting and more feasible. Tempting, because it influences policy. Feasible, because complexity allows more room to manipulate.
Until science is restored, can we still trust science in disciplines and institutions with low scientific rigor? One answer might be that low scientific rigor is still better than no scientific rigor at all. But this scientific rigor has sometimes fallen so low that it is mostly misleading, and it would be preferable for these disciplines and universities to no longer cloak themselves in the virtues of science.
Basic skepticism, which demands evidence and wants to understand how we know what we know, is fundamentally healthy and even central to the scientific approach. During the science crisis we are experiencing, citizens must be particularly vigilant. Their trust can only be conditional and granular. Conditional on the arguments provided and the evidence of adherence to the scientific method. Granular: trust should vary by discipline and institution. It is not about uniformly trusting or distrusting everything that claims to be science, but about granting trust based on the scientific rigor of the discipline and the university presenting the results. And it is not forbidden to use common sense.
When those who betray the scientific method see they no longer sway public opinion, they will be pressured to reform.
Complacency is poisoning the science we so crucially need. Citizens, journalists, and scientists alike must act now to restore the very soul of science: the uncompromising search for truth
Pierre-Alain Bruchez holds a PhD in economics and previously worked at the Swiss Federal Finance Administration. In 2023, he initiated a referendum as an ordinary citizen. He writes on democracy, science, and nature. His latest book (in French) is ÉCOLOGIE VITALE –– Protéger la nature hors de nous pour la ranimer en nous.
Support Off-Guardian:
The Communists have always told each other that truth does not matter and that there is no morality, just “political correctness” (not moral rectitude) and getting their Class War and Race War done. They brought this attitude into Science as much as anywhere else, in their quest to infiltrate all human activities. Communism means you die for lack of meaning and identity
“Citizen scrutiny is essential. ” Citizen scrutiny??? When most “citizens” are “covid” injected up to the gills and still stupid enough to think “they did the right thing” Ha Ha Ha. Idiots!
Science took a wrong turn over a hundred years ago when it abandoned the aether for “clever mathematics” not based on observations. The “Electrical Universe” paradigm pioneered by the Thunderbolts Project available on YouTube answers many questions without recourse to emperor’s new clothes style maths.
Suffice to say, part of this major fraud was the canonisation of Einstein. “Einstein” was in part a project to project Jewish intellectualism as something more than banking and trade.
The EU paradigm unites the four forces of nature behind the idea of positive and negative charges. Gravity is not the warping of “space time” but the transmission of charge through the aether. This transmission is by longitudinal waves and is instantaneous.(Think pulling a rope rather than waving it up and down). The mechanism this explains the incredible reported speeds of nuts and bolts UFOs (e.g. the classical 1950s saucer.)
The EU paradigm also goes someway to explaining “antigravity” propulsion because it places it in the realm of electrical engineering. Eric Laithwaite’s lecture touches upon this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpCEJxO6V9g
I recall it offended the sensibilities of “scientists” and may not have been broadcast.
I might add that after studying maths and physics at degree level my takeaway now after many years is the supremacy of intuiting human motivation above that of the supposed science. My lecturers did not understand the subject themselves. It has taken me decades to digest and understand this. True they were “clever” in a restricted sense of moving symbols around. They were repeaters. They were repeaters because they needed to pay their mortgages and convince themselves of their own “intelligence”.
They did not understand the subject themselves because any science built upon faulty premises is inherently incommunicable. This is where “cleverness”, the faith in seeing the emperor’s new clothes, trumps reason. Science was once known as “natural philosophy”. It has become the servant of politics, but natural philosophy itself kowtowed to medieval religion as well.
***
I DESPISE ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.
THERE ARE SEVERAL POSTERS HERE THAT OTHERWISE SEEM UNOBJECTIONABLE BUT OFTEN FLOAT THEIR “DR” STATUS BEFORE THEIR NAME.
MIGHT I ASK WHY YOU DO THIS?
IS IT BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THE HOOPS YOU HAVE JUMPED THROUGH TO GET A PIECE OF PAPER SOMEHOW “ELEVATE YOU” ABOVE THE REST OF US?
Simon Smith, 1974 Cycling Proficiency graduate and Smethwick cultural attaché to TTS…
LOL…
Restore the Science..ho ho ho…the scientific method is merely a procedure, it doesn’t need restoring one need only apply it to a problem honestly.. which seems to be problematic for the regime and its credentialed imbeciles..
The science as this imbecile regards it is just part of the entertainment plex..like the moon landing and kwakzination..genetics, relativity, epidemiology..if you believe in the science you need to give a guinea pig a good scrotal scrape…and inject some puss in your eye and them scrape your rectal region for anal plume residue and PCR the fucking hell out of it…
you god damn conspiracy theorists..
NB: lol more very off guardian narrative steering..
Thank goodness for this superb and much-needed article! I can see the dire need for it because I am a copy editor. The number of theses (dissertations) of doctoral-degree students I see of which the authors cannot understand the difference between a body of information that supports a thesis and a body of information that proves it is dismaying. I get to see the theses that have been approved by the writers’ supervisors. And I wonder: How can senior university teachers, the academics who endorse students’ theses as fit for publication, endorse such sloppy, a-logical reasoning? Alternately, do we now have universities where the teaching staff is below par? I fear that we do.
Trust the science which says women can have dicks and men can get PMS and which changed noontime temperature readings in the shade to taking temperatures in sunlight to “prove” average temperatures are increasing. If we don’t turn it back from these idiots who’ve captured scientific integrity then in a hundred years time we’ll be back to denouncing witches, and it will be men who say they are women who will burn real women.
People want to be fooled by scientists or by competing googleXperts. NASA is still trusted or quoted and actively covering up thus manmade climate change for the public and powerfull evil man who create fires, tornados, storms and daily 1000-year floodings with their teslacoils for the theorists ..
Einstein was not a scientist + stole his ideas from
his Patentoffice where he was placed by Rothschild
in swizerland .
Take the word ‘fraud’, or the word ‘lie”, or ‘dishonesty’ – and you will find that for most people there no longer is anything inherently evil with such concepts, for to them it all depends on the context, or “situation”. Such words once had a strong pejorative meaning signaling a bad character. When you have a strong moral principle saying that fraud or lying is wrong, then in any situation you are going to have more difficulty getting around your principles in tolerating the fraudulent or dishonest deeds – either of yourself or others. Getting away with an evil act like defrauding someone is no justification, nor is it Kosher just because you have so much power that the people you are duping are clueless or have no real right of redress – or even to the facts.
In this broken-down civilization of the “new normal” in which morals of right and wrong have become entirely relative to most people, it should be no surprise to anyone that the fields of medicine, law and science were soon to follow. If basic reality and life-style preferences are a matter of choice then it logically follows that the truth is as relativistic as modern morality – which unhinged itself from natural law and the laws of he who is Most Real (i.e. He Who Is). This is so because no matter how we look at things, what we believe to be true is that which is the most accurate reflection of reality. The relativity of the truth, is the denial of reality, the denial of knowledge, the denial of meaning, the denial of right and wrong, and the denial of God. We have a hunger for the truth because ultimately we believe that what “IS” is Good. It was David Hume who maintained that you cannot get from an “is” to an “ought”. However, he was wrong. Is and Ought if not joined at the hip, are symbiotic, and what we believe to be most true does tend to dictate or determine our behaviour and our choices.
When scientists throw the search for Who IS out of their philosophies, interests, and personal belief systems, then their pursuit of “what is” in their work ultimately becomes for lesser interests, ultimately a search for power over things and people, and especially by those controlling the research who want to play God.
The pursuit of science in the West has hardly been a benign affair to simply know in order to marvel over creation or for a main purpose of contemplating ultimate reality, and God, which is what Aristotle, the father of science, had essentially advocated while distaining a lot of what goes on in applied science. In this post-modern age if you do take God out of the equation in ultimate things then you are also stripping away any real and substantial basis for a moral code in union with that ultimate reality. Not only are you going to get moral relativism on steroids but you are going to have those wielding the scientific powers having a kind of God complex over all of those beneath them – which is the state we are in today.
If it is so clearly the case these days that knowledge is the special preserve and privilege of the most powerful, and mainly through the application of scientific knowledge, hidden from their “enemies” (which incidentally now clearly includes us) then we cannot be surprised that those in power also regard the TRUTH as their special preserve and privilege, or be surprised that they firmly believe that they have an absolute right to lie to us and defraud us on any subject or issue they deem fit. Most people in this overwhelming Orwellian System of power abuse seem not to be the least perturbed that the higher ups not only constantly lie to them and control them with massive frauds, one after another, but in being so complacent they in effect affirm those rights over themselves, institutionalizing them such they they have no real rights of their own. Covid proved this.
People still do not have any rights to the facts about what substances were in the Covid vaccines jabbed into them. They accept that not only did their government have a right to inject them with stuff without any informed consent about any risks, but also what the stuff actually was. They have no clue if they received a placebo or the real spike-protein producing hooch, or even other experimental substances, and they are so isolated in their morally-relativistic individuality that they have no means even of caring. In fact, most people appear content to abide by whatever view of reality is dished out to them by the elites in power. They are content to believe that the truth is really a matter of one’s interests such that whomever has the most power to realize their interests gets to determine what the truth is and what all of those under them ought to believe and obey. They seem not to believe that those who have the most knowledge and impart the most truth about what is most real and the actual nature of God ought to be believed and followed instead. Evil occurs when we bend reality to suit our interests which are not in conformity to the interests and designs of God.
Covid truthers have united more on the basis their own personal rights being violated, and not very much on the basis of the massive crimes against humanity every with the billions of people defrauded and coerced into taking the jabs.
At the top of the System, which is a pyramid of unchecked power, are a group of people who are playing God. To them, knowledge and the truth is their preserve and privilege, while lying, brainwashing, and defrauding us is their right.
Libertarians only fight half of the battle. They are essentially moral relativists thinking they can be safe if they are left to believe and act as they choose. They are only concerned about their own rights, or a kind of freedom which can only be translated into chaos in place of totalitarianism.
Conservatives unfortunately are just complainers when it comes to changes they don’t agree with and regard as destructive. They invariably settle for slow progressivism into social destruction rather than responding with anything really effective in opposition, simply because they are most afraid of rocking the boat of their personal holdings. They “tolerated” the moral relativism of the 20th century which dominated the thinking and teachings of our educational systems and the media, fully knowing that various destructive vices would eventually be deemed legal and actually become institutionalized. They could see where things were going like everyone else, but were content to sit on their hands to let everything turn to shit so long as it did not affect them directly.
Whom does that leave us to overthrow the evil System if we cannot covert those holding the reins of power? The old labels of ‘libertarians’, ‘conservatives’. ‘liberals’ and ‘left’ & ‘right’ were all killed off by the pandemic, which was the only aspect of it which was not “planned”. What came out of it was a demand for the TRUTH – for without it we now know there can be no FREEDOM, no JUSTICE, no TRUST. Without these things there cannot be any flourishing, peace, security or happiness in our lives and we are all living a lie.
Long live the pursuit of the truth and its full disclosure to everyone!
“A Broken Science Needs All of Us: Researchers, Journalists, and Citizens” says some University spook with a PhD in economics and previously worked at the Swiss Federal Finance Administration!
Broken $cience needs nothing simply because it is already KAPUTT. Worn out, twisted into a fabric of mostly profitable lies that only assists “the management”. For Researchers, Journalists, Citizens and all the other useless marionettes it is only to pick one choice out of two: To die quickly or to die slow and in comfort while being engaged with the management. So make sure YOU fit in or one is out faster than one thinks! And all somehow love their lives in a fake reality.
Ein Stein does not make a mountain and focusing on a miserable fake pebble does not make a proper scientist.
Pro Palestine Action protest leads to nearly 900 arrests
Story by Joe Coughlan
Police said a protest in London on Saturday against the starvation in palestine and banning of Palestine Action led to the arrest of 890 people.
makes me laugh the government ignores the mass starvation in palestine lebanon syria etc
but makes it illegal to march in support of the people !
The majority of the arrests were for supporting a proscribed group, which is an offence under the Terrorism Act, while 33 were also made for other public order offences after the protest turned violent, including 17 for assaults on police officers. Palestine Action was proscribed by the UK Government under anti-terrorism legislation in July, which makes membership of or support for the group a criminal offence.
( but its ok for the jews to commit mass murder )
After being arrested, the detainee were released on bail. Anyone who refused to provide details or had been arrested while already on bail were put into custody. The 857 individuals arrested for Terrorism Act Offences will now be investigated by the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, 519 of which were transported to custody.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Claire Smart, who led the policing operation for the Metropolitan police, said: “I’d like to thank all officers involved in yesterday’s operation for their professionalism and tireless work despite the level of abuse that they faced.
The police are backing the wrong horse, they are aiding and abetting major crimes, becoming themselves criminals
In my casual Physics queries, a few points have accumulated–1) If protons have no mass, how can they affect the retina? 2) Is there such a thing in Nature as a pull? 3) All heat is from friction and oxygen is all about friction 4) How could light travel through Space without a medium, called Ether in the past? 5) Why talk about entropy when all we know is the Present, which has no sign of Entropy? 6) Gravity is understood better if you think of it as a push
Industrialization, by nature, is fraudulent. True, and no need to read further.
Given the quantities and capitalization involved, and necessary, large organizations are needed, bringing corporations into the picture.
A corporation, by law, must seek and strive for the greatest possible profit — return on shareholder investment.
That is fine, if you are manufacturing automobiles and stepladders (maybe), though even there, one never knows, unless one knows a sound stepladder when he sees one, and the autos are Toyotas, not Corvairs.
Creating and distributing “alopath poison” brings us into dangerous waters, however. Adding Jews to the mix turns those waters into a SHARK tank.
Beach closed! I’m going fishing. Hand down that harpoon!
Academia is full of freemasons who decide what goes and what goes not.
“Official” science has provided us with theorems and equations that work for purposes of engineering, for example, to build a bridge.
But there exist voices from the scientific community that claim that much of them are conceptually wrong or incomplete, and thus, like a dead-end street.
Who knows?
It may be possible.
There’s Science and then there’s $cience.
The Bureaucrat Plague (worst plague ever)
just loves them some $cience.
“Harassment of individuals deemed politically incorrect often arises from joint lobbying efforts involving certain students, administrative staff, and scientists.” …. I have said for decades that political correctness is the enemy of truth. It is snivelry at best, which is a disgusting trait and deserving of being mercilessly mocked, but more typically a malignant cancer cultivated and spread by the demonically deranged who degrade and destroy, deserving of being chased through the streets and lobotomized with claw hammers and cinder blocks.
If you want truth and any measure of freedom in these dark days of satanic inversion, then you’d better be prepared to literally fight for it because the enemies of truth have no respect for rational or reasonable thought.
Some really meaty comments. Exceptional contributions from Simon and jo.
“Ein Stein does not make a mountain” – a wonderful turn of phrase.
I’d like to hear Simon’s answers to Lewis’ questions but I’ll have a quick amateur’s sniff
• Question 1. Photons, rather than protons are processed by the retina. Photons are boson quanta, they require no mass. They have charge, wave-particle duality and are guided by electro-magnetic fields.
• Question 2. I think you need to reframe your question, Lewis. What you mean is, is there a fundamental force in nature that can account for a “pull”? The answer is yes, kinetics.
• Question 3. I’m not sure I understand the proposition. All heat is not from friction. Heat can derive from electro-chemical reactions, for example.
• Question 4. Light requires a medium. The ether is indispensible.
• Question 5. Speak for yourself. I’m suffering from thermo-dynamic collapse just sitting here without any socks on.
• Question 6. There’s no such thing as gravity. The ether is apportioned into magnetic fields of different dimensions, producing differing voltages. You can’t have a push without a pull, Lewis. Remember the Tao.
Anyway, that’s the best I can do. Thank you, Lewis. That was an enjoyable challenge.
Short reply because you might not see this.
Wal Thornhill produced an excellent presentation “The Long Path to Understanding Gravity”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU&
Gravity as a “pushing” force is discussed here. A French contemporary of Newton suggested it. I recall Thornhill concludes that gravity is repulsive over long distances and attractive over short distances. But please check this claim.
In passing, Andyay previously reminded me – a couple of years ago – of the preferred name “aether” rather than “ether”. Both are fine, but the later is also a chemical. So I believe “aether” removes ambiguity. Maxwell’s equations needed the aether to be meaningful.
Crucial facts here and excellent comments. The big takeaway is that comprehending is much more than understanding. The two are certainly not synonyms!
Send this page to all your friends!
Simon Smith on September 7, 2025 at 10:03 am
‘I DESPISE ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.
THERE ARE SEVERAL POSTERS HERE THAT OTHERWISE SEEM UNOBJECTIONABLE BUT OFTEN FLOAT THEIR “DR” STATUS BEFORE THEIR NAME.
MIGHT I ASK WHY YOU DO THIS?
IS IT BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THE HOOPS YOU HAVE JUMPED THROUGH TO GET A PIECE OF PAPER SOMEHOW “ELEVATE YOU” ABOVE THE REST OF US?’
Oh, Simon Smith! Are you burdened by a weighty chippo?
And BTW: An ‘argument from authority’ is one that is made out with reference to experts in a field to which a writer wants to contribute. There is nothing remotely remiss in such an argument. Indeed, it is required of writers of scholarly dissertations, and of those who seek publication as original contributors to a body of knowledge.
@Sophie
Thanks for picking up the gauntlet…
1/ Academia is rotten. It is beholden to big business.
2/ Certificates are for those who jump through hoops. Since you post here you are certainly not fixated on mainstream memes. There is hope for you 😊
3/ It is not just academic credentials I have a problem with. It is “Nobel Prizes”, the British honours systems, and so on.
4/ In 64 years while partaking of “system learning” and my own learning, it is my own that is uncredentialled and not “certified” that I believe is the best. Part of this learning has arisen from hands on politics that cannot be bettered by any academic course. When I was a maths teacher I learnt more from needing to understand it myself than when I did my degree in the subject. I rote learnt pages of mathematical gibberish to pass my final exams that proved nothing except the power of my short-term memory. And as I have noted my lecturers did not understand how their mathematical symbol wielding connected to reality.
5/ I have lived a life of truthseeking in recent years and have not sacrificed myself to a nagging woman who would have no doubt sought to steer me down a materialist course as your gender does.
I suppose a “chippo” is Aussie slang for “a chip on my shoulder”?
I have stacks of certificates but they mean nothing except having been a good little boy…
Haven’t you used “Professor” or “Dr”?
Are you proud of having been declared a “good little girl”? So why don’t you use it now or have I touched a nerve your majesty?
God knows people float their qualifications when they venture opinions on items outside their speciality in any case. And I suspect you have done so as well…