In the featured video, 1 James Corbett of The Corbett Report explores what it means to “trust the science, ” demolishing along the way the notion that science can ever be “settled” and beyond question. This is important, because technical ruse will continue to be used in the biosecurity territory being built around us.
What Science Should You Trust?
With increasing frequency, we’re told to “trust the science” and “follow the science.” Yet what discipline are we supposed to follow? Exactly who’s an expert and who’s not, and who decides which is which? As I’ve been writing about for nearly two years now, there’s plenty of scientific suggestion refuting everything we’re being told to accept as “fact.”
This includes the claim that masks protect against viral infection, that lockdowns slow down the spread, that clas closes protect children, that there are no effective early treatments for COVID-1 9, and that the fast-tracked COVID shots are safe, effective and necessary even if you have natural immunity.
Whistleblowers Expose Corruption at the EPA
Corbett starts out by reviewing a recent Intercept story, published in two parts: “Whistleblowers Expose Corruption in EPA Chemical Safety Office, “2 published July 2, 2021, and “Leaked Audio Shows Pressure to Overrule Scientist in ‘Hair-On-Fire’ Cases, “3 published August 4, 2021.
According to four whistleblowers — Elyse Osterweil, Martin Phillips, Sarah Gallagher and William Irwin, all of whom are scientists employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and harboured doctorates in toxicology, chemistry, biochemistry and medicinal chemistry — managers and career staffers in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention have manipulated with the risk assessments of dozens of compounds to obscure their jeopardies. According to The Intercept: 4
“The whistleblowers, whose jobs involve identifying the potential sufferings be represented by new chemicals, equipped The Intercept with detailed evidence of pressure within the agency to minimize or remove evidence of potential adverse effects of the chemicals, including neurological effects, birth defect, and cancer.
On several occasions, informed about jeopardies was deleted from agency ratings without informing or trying the consent of the scientists who authored them.
Some of these cases preceded the EPA to withhold critical information from the public about potentially dangerous chemical showings. In other disputes, the removal of the peril intelligence or the alter of the scientists’ resolutions in reports paved the way for the use of substances, which otherwise would not have been allowed on the market.”
At the EPA, Following the Science Is a Punishable Offense
The EPA, in accordance with these whistleblowers, is violating the Toxic Substances Control Act( TSCA ), and when staffers actually do follow the social sciences wherever it produces, they are punished.
In a statement to The Intercept and Rep. Ro Khanna, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the EPA whistleblowers state that they fear “their actions( or stagnations) at the direction of management are developing in harm to human health and the environment.”
They certainly have cause for concern. For example, one recent study5 informs revelation to organochlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers during pregnancy can cause the compounds to amass in variou fetal organs and contributes to chronic health problems. This is the first study to demonstrate that harmful compounds can be present in the fetus even if the mother does not have detectable levels in her blood. As noted by Beyond Pesticides: 6
“ … studies like these aid government and health officials better distinguish fetal revelation contaminants and subsequent state concerns otherwise missed by current chemical monitoring methods.”
In Part 27 of the same report, The Intercept discusses a particular chemical that Irwin had been assessing. He had concerns that the unnamed chemical in question was analogous to bisphenol-A( BPA ), a chemical now recognized for its detrimental effects on reproduction, fertility and human hormones.
When he refused to sign off on the chemical as safe, he was removed from the assessment, and the chemical was approved, despite its full potential distress he’d uncovered.
So, what scientists should we trust? Scientists like these four whistleblowers? Or “the EPA” as a catchall nickname, where tainted career directors have overruled the scientists doing the actual work and who have the actual science credentials?
Believing( the Wrong) Science Now Proves You’re Racist
As noted by Corbett, this issue is no big matter. Determining what discipline is “valid” and what’s not has gigantic backlashes for society. To exemplify his pitch, he goes on to review the issue of hormone-disrupting chemicals and their reproductive effects.
Some scientists have reverberated alarm systems, saying our reproductive capability is so severely impacted by poisonous environmental factors that by 2045, all duos will require fertility care if they want to conceive. Sperm weighs have plummeted precipitously ever since the 1970 s, and the trend is showing no indicates of leveling off.
If genuine, this signals a true-life existential disaster, but as has become the norm over the past couple of years, the declining sperm count issue is now being reframed as a racist, “far right” issue. This in and of itself ought to signal that we’ve left science and moved into ideology, but no.
The narrative we’re asked to swallow is the complete opposite: That the scientists who impelled these inventions abused imitation science to fit an ideological narrative deep-rooted in white-hot dominance. Meanwhile, “the science” offered by nonscientists says there’s no problem now, and that’s that.
Corbett cites a Quillette article by Geoffrey Kabat, “The Sperm Count Culture War, ” published mid-June 2021, which nations :8
“The latest entering in the seman tally debate comes from a Harvard-MIT research team led by philosophy professors Marion Boulicault and Sarah Richardson.
They recently published a paper in the magazine Human Fertility entitled ‘The Future of Sperm Variability for Understanding Global Sperm Count Trends.’ They also published an section in Slate9 summarizing their findings for a dispose audience.
While the scientific article is dense and difficult to navigate, the Slate article gets straight to the point with its name: ‘The Doomsday Sperm Theory Embraced by the Far Right.SSSS
Its subheading elaborateds: ‘The intuition that male birthrate is on the wane is an aged belief dressed up as science.’ The columnists tell us why they guess the acquired discipline on slumping seman tallies should be rejected 😛 TAGEND
‘The human species is in grave reproduction threat, according to recent headlines. Some scientists say that sperm counts in followers around the world have been plummeting, with Western boys approaching total infertility by 2045.
Far-right ‘Great Replacement’ theoreticians, who fear that people of color are ‘replacing’ the lily-white population, have taken up the research with gusto …
The narrative that white-hot, Western souls are in danger of emasculation and departure has deep roots in white nationalist dialogue. It is restrained to a maudlin cultural illusion of a past in which grey husbands impounded unchallenged power.'”
Human Extinction Concerns Dismissed as Fearmongering
As noted by Kabat, the two philosophy professors “all but ignore the science to focus on what they believe is more important — the ideological framing of the question in socio-cultural discourse.”
Interestingly, the working paper they published is in response to “what is widely considered to be the most definite experiment on discipline of sperm counting fall, ” Kabat memoes, and perhaps that’s why they did it. It’s real science being discredited as “science driven by ideology, ” by nonscientists who have an ideological schedule but feign not to!
As ‘The Science’ more and more prescribes whether you can step outside your own home … I hope you understand that the stakes have been raised to the point where this is no longer some mere philosophical concern. This is the heart of the biosecurity state that we are being infused in.~ James Corbett
Here we have two philosophy profs trying to debunk 50 years of research by some of the most respected investigates in the field — by declaring the whole investigation racist, misogynistic and “overtly white supremacist.” They roundly dismiss very concerned about impending global infertility and thus human extinction, territory: 10
“What these suspicions have in common with the threat of sperm count decline is the premise that, in an environmentally clean and appropriately-gendered social past, there existed an optimal and natural show of masculinity …
It is all too easy for scientific societies, with majority-white investigates, to center white people and further these beliefs, which circulate often unconsciously … The recent seman tally slump study demonstrates how racist, sexist, and Eurocentric notions can get been incorporated in the categories that scientists use to analyze data.”
In their article, Boulicault et.al. volunteer their own hypothesis to explain and rejects the decline in sperm count as a natural variation that has no bearing on fertility or health — none of which is accurate or true.
The take-home message here is that philosophy profs can demote( or at least attempt to depose) a crew of reproductive health scientists who have spent their entire professions looking at this issue, simply by interjecting their own ideology into the mix, all while alleging the actual scientists of ideology-based hype. And here’s how mainstream media enveloped this clearly insufficient debunking attempt: 11
Yahoo! News — “Freaking Out About Declining Sperm Count? Don’t, Harvard Researchers Say.”
The Telegraph — “Threat of Human Extinction from Falling Sperm Counts Greatly Exaggerated.”
Haaretz — “Spermaggedon in the West? Relax, Harvard Has Good News for You.”
Vox — “Sperm Counts Are Falling. This Isn’t the Reproductive Apocalypse — Yet.”
Kabat writes: 12
“None of the information stories … so much as mentioned on the inflammatory rant of the Boulicault paper, which will appear to the fair-minded reader as an partisan manifesto masquerading as a technical hypothesis. Even the New York Times flub this. It supplied a beneficial discussion of some of the questions raised by the Harvard study and presented different points of view …
But it discussed research studies as a serious critique of the sperm counting quarrel, demonstrating no indication of Boulicault and colleagues’ ideological framing of the question or that their alternative hypothesis has little to do with science …
It is difficult to explain the deference paid to the Harvard paper by various reporters. Perhaps we are now in a time in which even civilized scientists are reluctant to call out an uninformed but ideologically fashionable management of a high-profile issue.”
Are You Seeing How This Applies to the COVID Narrative?
These fibs tell us a lot about our current situation, where ideological gatekeepers are commanding us to “look here , not there.” Actual, reproducible discipline by bonafide scientists is being dismissed as “ideology masquerading as science, ” while hoax or frail science is being held up as the only science worthy of that designation.
If you chose to trust science that counters the technocratic transhumanist Deep State narrative, well, then you’re labeled a prejudiced, a misogynist, a white supremacist, a domestic gunman or some other unpleasant and pejorative call, the only purpose of which is to shame and slammed you up.
As noted by Corbett, when politicians and health authorities implore us to “trust the science, ” they are referring to select agency-branded science, representing science that has the stamp of approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Health Organization, for example.
The assumption we’re supposed to accept is that these organizations aren’t defiled by the kind of corruption we’re now told exists within the EPA — financially driven corruption that sidelines actual scientists, even within those organizations, that may have serious concerns. But regulatory captivate is a longstanding problem, and there’s no ground to suggest it’s been out of the agencies we’re now told to rely without question. As noted by Corbett 😛 TAGEND
“As ‘The Science’ more and more prescribes whether you can step outside your own home, or what kind of experimental interventions you are forced or coerced into position into your person against your will, I hope you understand that the ventures have been raised to the point where this is not some mere theoretical concern. This is the heart of the biosecurity state that we are being steeped in.”
Read more: articles.mercola.com