Pointy-Headed Geeks, Stage II (George Monbiot)
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: Pointy-Headed Geeks, Stage II (George Monbiot)
Date: Mar 9, 2010 9:34 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
===============================
Um... Almost. Not quite.
We're at Stage II+, now, where
other people are falsely claiming
to have first presented the knowledge
that "Lyme Disease" was a crime.
Stage I was the complete and thorough
gangbang of myself, *alone* (I am the
only actual scientist in the Lyme
activists groups- the only one who
actually worked in an analytical
lab for BigPharma:
http://www.actionlyme.org/TROVAN.htm )
Stage III is the applications of
the Pam3Cys science, which is already
here:
Pam3Cys as such a reliable immune-
suppressor, it could be the new
stem cells of the Central Nervous
System:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=19661221[uid]&cmd=DetailsSearch&log$=details
And here is an article about the
predictably ANTI-INFLAMMATORY mechanisms
of LYMErix, or the HIV and Tuberculosis
vaccines:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=20081527[uid]&cmd=DetailsSearch&log$=details
We're at the crest, - the Energy of
Activation, if you will - before the
entire thing becomes acceptable science:
1) "Lyme Disease" is simply Relapsing Fever,
2) When scientists want to find spirochetes,
they use the right DNA...
http://www.actionlyme.org/PRIMERSHELLGAME.htm
3) And as SUNY-SB says, "CONTINUING ALONG
WITH THE PREVIOUS DATA WHICH SHOWS THAT
BORRELIAL/RELAPSING FEVER INFECTION OF
THE BRAIN IS INCURABLE...:"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=19995919[uid]&cmd=DetailsSearch&log$=details
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAIN_PERMANENT.htm
IT IS TRUE, AS MARK KLEMPNER SAYS,
'LYME IS A PERMANENT, INCURABLE INFECTION:'"
http://www.actionlyme.org/Mark_Klempner_Fibroblasts.htm
So, it's okay.
We're done.
Psychiatry is GAME OVER, especially now
that the whole world knows vaccines
cause intracranial hemorrhage:
http://www.actionlyme.org/index.htm
It's okay, George. It's ^^^ real. There
it is in black and white and repeated
200 times in the literature, including
the MMR monograph, which I recommend
everyone look at closely.
And everyone ought to look closely at
CDC's participation in the Lyme crimes..
what their patents say, that is:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CDCS_PARTICIPATION_IN_LYME_CRIMES.htm
"We, the CDC in Fort Collins, Colorado,
own patents in Europe which show that
we know that the Allen Steere/Dearborn
kind of Lyme is horseshit - and that
there are two kinds of Lyme: Bad Knees
ONLY, and the New Great Imitators, which
fail the Titanic Iceberg Test (What's under
water - what you can't see, the immunosuppression
outcomes of Lyme and LYMErix - that which
does not test positive to Steere's bullshit
criteria - is gonna really hurt you:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYMEDISEASE_CHP3_B.htm )
See, you would have to be a "responsible"
http://www.actionlyme.org/Hilarious.htm
adult like myself and go to the Yale
Medical Library to fish out all those
reports the full texts of which are not
online, like What Allen Steere Did in
Europe to Falsify the Diagnostic Standard
for Lyme Disease:
http://www.actionlyme.org/STEERE_IN_EUROPE.htm
Bogus ^^ "high passage strains" and recombinant
OspA-B from US strain B31 (the one with
no OspC or the brain invasion antigen in
it; DO NOT USE QUEST LAB FOR THIS REASON)
to create the bogus Dearborn Standard, where
OspA and B are left out of the standard
so that Yale's L2 Diagnostics, Imugen
and Corixa could have their little RICO
within the RICO:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CORIXARICO.htm
Robert Schoen is key. He participated in
the development of the RICO method, and he
also falsely reported that LYMErix worked
(see my homepage for more on that).
You, a private person (and not some cowardly
suck-up to Yale on the CT Medical Board or in
the CT Department of Health, or the NY OPMC
for that matter:
http://www.actionlyme.org/OPMC_CORRUPTION.htm )
have to take the personal initiative
to hunt down the real data and look at
what these assholes did in their lab to
come up with the ridiculous lie that you
"had to have Late Lyme Arthritis in a Knee,
that Goes Away on its Own and Needs No
Treatment (Yale's Steve Malawista):
http://www.actionlyme.org/PENIS_MATTERS_101.htm
"in order to have a 'case" of 'Early Lyme:'"
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038469.htm
Make sense?
No.
Does it make sense for SmithKline to have
said: "LYMErix Prevents Asymptomatic Lyme"
Give ^^^ that a go.
Where's the data on that?
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
====================================
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/09
Published on Tuesday, March 9, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
The Unpersuadables: When Facts Are Not Enough
There is no simple way to battle public hostility to climate research.
As the psychologists show, facts barely sway us anyway
by George Monbiot
There is one question that no one who denies manmade climate change
wants to answer: what would it take to persuade you? In most cases the
answer seems to be nothing. No level of evidence can shake the growing
belief that climate science is a giant conspiracy codded up by boffins
and governments to tax and control us. The new study by the Met
Office, which paints an even grimmer picture than the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will do nothing to change
this view.
The attack on climate scientists is now widening to an all-out war on
science. Writing recently for the Telegraph, the columnist Gerald
Warner dismissed scientists as "white-coated prima donnas and
narcissists ... pointy-heads in lab coats [who] have reassumed the
role of mad cranks ... The public is no longer in awe of scientists.
Like squabbling evangelical churches in the 19th century, they can
form as many schismatic sects as they like, nobody is listening to
them any more."
Views like this can be explained partly as the revenge of the
humanities students. There is scarcely an editor or executive in any
major media company - and precious few journalists - with a science
degree, yet everyone knows that the anoraks are taking over the world.
But the problem is compounded by complexity. Arthur C Clarke remarked
that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic". He might have added that any sufficiently advanced expertise
is indistinguishable from gobbledegook. Scientific specialisation is
now so extreme that even people studying neighbouring subjects within
the same discipline can no longer understand each other. The detail of
modern science is incomprehensible to almost everyone, which means
that we have to take what scientists say on trust. Yet science tells
us to trust nothing, to believe only what can be demonstrated. This
contradiction is fatal to public confidence.
Distrust has been multiplied by the publishers of scientific journals,
whose monopolistic practices make the supermarkets look like angels,
and which are long overdue for a referral to the Competition
Commission. They pay nothing for most of the material they publish,
yet, unless you are attached to an academic institute, they'll charge
you £20 or more for access to a single article. In some cases they
charge libraries tens of thousands for an annual subscription. If
scientists want people at least to try to understand their work, they
should raise a full-scale revolt against the journals that publish
them. It is no longer acceptable for the guardians of knowledge to
behave like 19th-century gamekeepers, chasing the proles out of the
grand estates.
But there's a deeper suspicion here as well. Popular mythology - from
Faust through Frankenstein to Dr No - casts scientists as sinister
schemers, harnessing the dark arts to further their diabolical powers.
Sometimes this isn't far from the truth. Some use their genius to
weaponise anthrax for the US and Russian governments. Some isolate
terminator genes for biotech companies, to prevent farmers from saving
their own seed. Some lend their names to articles ghostwritten by
pharmaceutical companies, which mislead doctors about the drugs they
sell. Until there is a global code of practice or a Hippocratic oath
binding scientists to do no harm, the reputation of science will be
dragged through the dirt by researchers who devise new means of
hurting us.
Yesterday in the Guardian Peter Preston called for a prophet to lead
us out of the wilderness. "We need one passionate, persuasive
scientist who can connect and convince ... We need to be taught to
believe by a true believer." Would it work? No. Look at the hatred and
derision the passionate and persuasive Al Gore attracts. The problem
is not only that most climate scientists can speak no recognisable
human language, but also the expectation that people are amenable to
persuasion.
In 2008 the Washington Post summarised recent psychological research
on misinformation. This shows that in some cases debunking a false
story can increase the number of people who believe it. In one study,
34% of conservatives who were told about the Bush government's claims
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were inclined to believe
them. But among those who were shown that the government's claims were
later comprehensively refuted by the Duelfer report, 64% ended up
believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
There's a possible explanation in an article published by Nature in
January. It shows that people tend to "take their cue about what they
should feel, and hence believe, from the cheers and boos of the home
crowd". Those who see themselves as individualists and those who
respect authority, for instance, "tend to dismiss evidence of
environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such
evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry,
activities they admire". Those with more egalitarian values are "more
inclined to believe that such activities pose unacceptable risks and
should be restricted".
These divisions, researchers have found, are better at explaining
different responses to information than any other factor. Our
ideological filters encourage us to interpret new evidence in ways
that reinforce our beliefs. "As a result, groups with opposing values
often become more polarised, not less, when exposed to scientifically
sound information." The conservatives in the Iraq experiment might
have reacted against something they associated with the Duelfer
report, rather than the information it contained.
While this analysis rings true, the description of where the dividing
line lies isn't quite right. It doesn't describe the odd position in
which I find myself. Despite my iconoclastic, anti-corporate
instincts, I spend much of my time defending the scientific
establishment from attacks by the kind of rabble-rousers with whom I
usually associate. My heart rebels against this project: I would
rather be pelting scientists with eggs than trying to understand their
datasets. But my beliefs oblige me to try to make sense of the science
and to explain its implications. This turns out to be the most
divisive project I've ever engaged in. The more I stick to the facts,
the more virulent the abuse becomes.
This doesn't bother me - I have a hide like a glyptodon - but it
reinforces the disturbing possibility that nothing works. The research
discussed in the Nature paper shows that when scientists dress
soberly, shave off their beards and give their papers conservative
titles, they can reach to the other side. But in doing so they will
surely alienate people who would otherwise be inclined to trust them.
As the MMR saga shows, people who mistrust authority are just as
likely to kick against science as those who respect it.
Perhaps we have to accept that there is no simple solution to public
disbelief in science. The battle over climate change suggests that the
more clearly you spell the problem out, the more you turn people away.
If they don't want to know, nothing and no one will reach them. There
goes my life's work.
© 2010 Guardian News and Media Limited
George Monbiot is the author of the best selling books The Age of
Consent: a manifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the
corporate takeover of Britain. He writes a weekly column for the
Guardian newspaper. Visit his website at www.monbiot.com
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci