Civil War for Truth: Science

Civil War for Truth: Science

Science Is Fundamentally Broken

I had shown in my last essay with the example of the humanities how corrupt parts of science are. Unfortunately, it’s worse than that. Even though the ideology of identity politics is creeping into other areas outside the humanities rapidly, it is not the worst problem the institution has.

John Ioannidis showed in his scientific article “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False1 from 2005 that 90% of all published medical information is flawed. He and his team found out after years of meta-analysis research that 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials.2

Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Ioannidis’ research was not controversial, and the scientific community was relieved somebody finally addressed the problem. His paper is one of the most-downloaded papers in the history of the journal and is considered foundational to the field of metascience.

He mentioned in his article the many reasons that lead to the problem. Bias is one of the reasons. It is easy to manipulate the results, even unintentionally or unconsciously.

Moreover for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.1

John Ioannidis, Why most Published Research Findings are False

The only way to ensure this bias is found is through rigorous scrutiny by other scientists. But this is not done.2

The ultimate protection against research error and bias is supposed to come from the way scientists constantly retest each other’s results—except they don’t. Only the most prominent findings are likely to be put to the test because there’s likely to be publication payoff in firming up the proof or contradicting it.

The peer-review process itself provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth, stated Nature in 2006.2

Bret Weinstein goes further in his assessment and thinks the whole process is corrupt and doesn’t ensure scientific quality, but is used by gatekeepers to filter out new, heterodox ideas and to protect scientist carriers and research money.

A recent study from September 2022 investigated the connection between status and anonymity in the peer-review process.3 The paper found strong evidence for […] status bias: while only 23 percent recommend ‘reject’ when the prominent researcher is the only author shown, 48 percent do so when the paper is anonymized, and 65 percent do so when the little-known author is the only author shown. The authors suggest that double-anonymization is a minimum requirement for an unbiased review process.

One of the reasons false studies live so long is that thousands of scientists have already built their careers on flawed papers. It’s like an epidemic, in the sense that they’re infected with these wrong ideas, and they’re spreading it to other researchers through journals,2 says Ioannidis.

Another huge problem is that scientists need to get constantly funding to stay afloat. To get tenured positions or to continue researching, they have to constantly publish in respected journals that have a rejection rate above 90 percent. Only noticeable papers can achieve this. It is much more rewarding to publish new findings than to re-prove someone else’s research.

Considerable parts of science are funded with third-party funds. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg explained in an interview that today, scientists proceed with their carrier only if they can find funding. It becomes secondary who pays the funding, which leads to corruption in science. Firstly, it means that research is only carried out for topics that can be used to earn money. And secondly, research results that the sponsor dislikes are not published at all. This might result in the repetition of harmful tests with candidates in the future. Wodarg demands that every study should be registered so that one can trace what became of the results.4

Many of the scientific claims in medical research or nutritional sciences are outright false or turn out as the opposite years later. Nutritional sciences are so often wrong that their rate of being wrong reaches nearly 100 percent. Ioannidis suggests a simple approach on how to deal with those findings: ignore them all.2

The problem was known for years to the scientific community but went unnoticed by the public. The devastating consequences of this unresolved problem could be seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jon Jureidini and Leemon B McHenry wrote in their 2022 scientific article The illusion of evidence based medicine:

The philosophy of critical rationalism, advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper, famously advocated for the integrity of science and its role in an open, democratic society. A science of real integrity would be one in which practitioners are careful not to cling to cherished hypotheses and take seriously the outcome of the most stringent experiments. This ideal is, however, threatened by corporations, in which financial interests trump the common good. Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expanding that market. The short term stimulus to biomedical research because of privatization has been celebrated by free market champions, but the unintended, long term consequences for medicine have been severe. Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.

Bret Weinstein told in an interview on the podcast The Portal a horrifying story from his discovery as an undergraduate. He discovered that the Telomere of lab mice were much longer than those of mice in nature, due to selective breeding of younger mice. The longer Telomeres gave the mice nearly no protection from tumors (that are never observed because the mice die early), but an infinite capacity to replace damaged tissue. These lab mice are much more resilient to damage from drug experiments than normal mice, which results in the false belief a tested drug is safe. All mice used for science in the USA come from one laboratory. Bret Weinstein’s finding was buried by what Eric Weinstein calls the Distributed Idea Suppression Complex (DISC)5 and the problem is not addressed until today.6

Science as a Religion

Even though science is flawed, it is our only tool to slowly approach the truth. It becomes problematic if people expect absolute truths from science and demand authoritarian measurements from politicians based on a flawed scientific basis.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Richard P. Feynman

Science can’t deliver absolute truth, ever. It can only try to formulate how likely a scientific result is. Science uses a hypothesis as an assumption before the research is started. It formulates a question that can be tested. A theory is a principle formed to explain the results shown by the data resulting from the research.

But during the COVID-19 “pandemic” people looked up to “The Science™” (Trust the Science) as bringers of absolute truth. Science became a substitute for religion. It showed all the signs of a religious cult.

Society itself is a codified hero system, which means that society everywhere is a living myth of the significance of human life, a defiant creation of meaning. Every society thus is a “religion” whether it thinks so or not: Soviet “religion” and Maoist “religion” are as truly religious as are scientific and consumer “religion,” no matter how much they may try to disguise themselves by omitting religious and spiritual ideas from their lives.

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

There were prophets like Anthony Fauci, Christian Drosten, and Karl Lauterbach. People wore shirts with iconized faces of the prophets, walls were sprayed with their faces and people even tattooed them on their bodies. There were many willing members of the scientific community (the clergy) to legitimize the political decisions of the leaders (the nobility). We had rules, dogma, rituals, and holy artifacts to recognize the good ones: social distancing, masks, and digital passports. There was the miracle, the “holy” mRNA vaccine. People stood for hours in the rain to be baptized with the holy substance. The heretics, that questioned the proportionality of the political measures or the safety and effectiveness of the novel vaccines, were hated and publicly shamed. Those who didn’t follow the rules were punished by the inquisition with high fines. The pariahs who didn’t obey were shunned and excluded from society.

Statements like ‘The Science says’ serve as the twenty-first-century equivalent of the exhortation ‘God said’. Unlike science, the term ‘The Science’ serves a moralistic and political project. It has more in common with a pre-modern revealed truth than with the spirit of experimentation that emerged with modernity. The constant refrain of ‘Scientists Tell Us’ serves as a prelude for a lecture on what threat to fear (…) those who do not heed the warnings of experts are frequently castigated as irresponsible if not evil.7

Frank Furedi, How Fear Works: Culture of Fear in the Twenty-First Century

“The science” was not even science, but pseudoscience. The difference is in pseudoscience you don’t ask questions, but conduct a model based on preconceived ideas, go on to find data that fits the model, and discard data that does not fit the model. You keep the experiment hidden and don’t publish the data. Trust the experts.

When advised to #FollowTheScience during Covid, we have often been handed a consensus position that was arrived at out of view of the public, generally with no sharing of process or data, and therefore with no ability to vet the results. (…) Consensus is not arrived at so quickly, or so completely. Coercion is. Coercion is anti-scientific. So is faith.8

Heather Heying, On not being a contrarian

The media manufactured consensus. Massive parts of the scientific community were suppressed and silenced. People like Dr. Robert W. Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, virologist and vaccine expert, formerly working at GAVI and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations, or former chief scientist of Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon, were demonized and removed from public conversations for their views.

Even John Ioannidis who predicted early on a median overall IFR of 0.23 and a median IFR for the under the 70s of 0.05 (a value which was nearly on point) was ignored and removed from the discussions.9 He corrected his values later down to 0.15-0.2 and to 0.03-0.04 for the age group under 7010 and calculated a global IFR of 0.15.11

Working treatments like Ivermectin, which showed to be effective in meta-studies12 and multiple countries such as India or Peru, were targeted and demonized in large-scale campaigns. The industrial-scientific medical complex didn’t even shy away from starting an opposing meta-analysis under Andrew Hill that came to other conclusions. Tess Lawrie spoke to Andrew Hill in a Zoom call, where he admitted having been instructed to change the conclusion of the paper by unnamed authors.1314

Eric Weinstein coined the sentence follow the silence, to describe a situation where considerable parts of the scientific and medical communities were too afraid to speak up, because of social or professional pressure and a drastic narrowing of acceptable scientific opinions.

The Crimes of the Past

What can happen if politicians follow pseudoscience instead of science can be seen in the example of Lysenkoism. Trofim Lysenko was the agriculturalist of the Soviet Union under Stalin, and his unscientific beliefs led directly to the death of tens of millions in the Soviet Union and later in Maoist China, where his ideas were implemented. Massive famine and death were the results of his pseudoscientific ideas.15

But there was another pseudoscientific theory broadly accepted by wide parts of the scientific community in the 20th Century: Eugenics. This discredited belief that certain families have better ancestry and are meant to lead the society was supported by prominent people like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Leland Standford, H. G. Wells, Bernard Shaw, and universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. The Rockefellers were massive supporters of Eugenics and supported the research with lots of money.16

The theory survived for more than 50 years and lead directly to the atrocities of the Nazis who used it as an excuse to sterilize or kill “unworthy” lives like mentally or physically disabled people, criminals, and other “asocial” people. After the war, Eugenics became unpopular, but it is still popular in specific circles and words like “population control” and “reproductive health” are modernized euphemisms of the same ideology.

Bill Gates’s father, Gates Sr., served on the board of Planned Parenthood after the founding of the organization. It was a re-brand birthed out of the American Eugenics Society.17

This family history of the Gates makes the connections of Bill Gates to child-sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein just more suspicious. The New York Times reported that Epstein owned a ranch in New Mexico that he wanted to use for controlled breeding using his DNA to improve humanity.

Mr. Epstein’s vision reflected his longstanding fascination with what has become known as transhumanism: the science of improving the human population through technologies like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. Critics have likened transhumanism to a modern-day version of eugenics, the discredited field of improving the human race through controlled breeding.18

James B. Stewart, Matthew Goldstein, and Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA

The Influence of Billionaires on Science

Many billionaires, especially Bill Gates and his foundation “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,” try to influence and control public policy and perception of their deeds in a growing and worrying way with hundreds of million USD every year. They claim to do this out of love for humanity, but this is hard to believe. The reasons for the investments are likely more sinister. Buying influence, getting more power or money, greed and fame (or even worse goals). Bill Gates himself boasted in an interview that his investment in vaccines resulted in an [over] 20:1 return on investment.19

But even if all his intentions were altruistic, why should we give control over the health of billions of people to a high-school dropout without any medical degree?

Bill Gates is not a trustworthy person. The more you research into his business with vaccines in Africa or India and the damage his foundation has caused with their vaccination programs, the more suspicious you will get. India kicked the foundation out of the country20 and it is one of the reasons Pfizer won’t try to get regular approval of their COVID-19 vaccine in India because the government demands after their experiences with the foundation now too many safety checks for Pfizer.

Bill Gates’ massive investment in industrial farming and farmland which made him the biggest private farmland owner in the United States is another worrying development.212223 Not to mention his megalomaniac idea of blocking the sun with dust particles.24

Everything Gates does is perfectly echoed by the final words by Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who presided over the Gates/Microsoft antitrust-fraud case:

Gates has a Napoleonic concept of himself, an appetite that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses.

But his behavior is not a coincidence, he follows the playbook of his idol, John D. Rockefeller.

After John D. Rockefeller owned nearly all oil production in the country, he searched for new ways to increase his wealth. He discovered that he could find new ways to use his oil to open new markets. One of those markets was medicine.25 We can see Gates working similarly. He identified a product (vaccines) and a market (developing countries) and pushed relentlessly for the implementation of his agenda. Of his 10 TED talks, more than half are on this topic.

Next, John D. Rockefeller bought every newspaper in the country and printed massive ads for his new oil-based medicine. The same happens now but on a much larger scale. Following in the footsteps of John D. Rockefeller, today, the pharmaceutical industry spends at least twice the amount as big oil every year to influence laws, policies, and public perception, writes Mikki Willis in his 2021 book Plandemic.25 Big Pharma spends $5 billion every year in the United States on advertising alone. 75% of the total advertising budget for 2020 was paid by Big Pharma.26 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spent $5.822 billion in total in 2020, $1.793 billion on Global Health alone.27 The money goes everywhere to influence politicians, doctors, scientists, and journalists.

If you follow the money and look at the conflict of interests, you’ll, again and again, stumble on strange coincidences. For example, the husband of Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, is the medical director of the US pharmaceutical company Orgenesis since September 2020.28 The husband of “scientific” YouTube media influencer Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim is a director at Merck Group, one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world. German TV doctor and comedian Eckart von Hirschhausen’s foundation received €1.4 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.29 This is just the tip of the iceberg with examples of German politicians and scientists, the pattern repeats across the globe.

An unnamed data scientist created 2021 a graph with over 6,500 objects including individuals, NGOs, companies, and documents connected with more than 7,200 links. The graph shows the flow of money and relationships and was created from public data. The document is 169 pages long (in the English language, and can be downloaded exclusively at Club der klaren Worte.30

Rockefeller founded the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research and put his brother in position as the head. He used his scientific influence to drive out all natural—and therefore unpatentable and unprofitable—medicines, creating a new market for oil-derived drugs.25 In the same way, Gates uses his influence to change science to his preference by supporting the causes he cares about. He is the second-largest donor to the WHO, with 13% of the donations. 20% are paid by the member states, and 80% are donated by private sources. The list of donors includes pharmaceutical companies like AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck. Gates’s influence helped for the first time in the history of the WHO a questionable candidate for the director position who was not a doctor.

Still, was it any surprise that Tedros emerged victorious? With Gates behind him—as well as other powerful allies including the Clinton Global Initiative and the Chinese Communist Party—he was a shoo-in. The fact that he wasn’t even a doctor was easily ignored. More disturbingly, however, were some of the scandals in his past that were quietly swept under the rug. Prior to his appointment, Tedros was a high-ranking member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front in Ethiopia, a brutal and corrupt political group responsible for crimes against humanity, including bombings, kidnappings, tortures, and killings. He also was accused of helping to cover up to three different cholera epidemics in the African nation that occurred under his leadership as health minister.25

Mikki Willis, Plandemic: Fear Is the Virus. Truth Is the Cure

No wonder the WHO seems to always be aligned with the interests of Big Pharma. They redefined the definition of a pandemic during COVID-19, so they could declare it a pandemic because it didn’t meet the criteria. The WHO re-defined “herd immunity” and wrote herd immunity could only be achieved with mass vaccinations.

John D. Rockefeller shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to transform his reputation from the most hated man in America to a benevolent philanthropist,25 writes Willis. In the same way, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation influences public perception.

John D. Rockefeller donated millions to everybody who supported his cause, and so does Gates. When it showed that Rockefeller’s coal- and oil-based medicine was causing cancer, he founded the American Cancer Society in 1912.25 We can hope the massive push and investment of Big Pharma into mRNA technology do not work out similarly.

Scientific Fraud

It’s not an accident we find prominent people like Anthony Fauci or Christian Drosten at the center of the COVID-19 crisis. And neither is the most likely location of the outbreak, the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The famous PCR test for COVID-19 is an example of the scientific fraud that plagues the medical scientific community. These things happen if research and financial interests collide. The scientific paper for the PCR test of Christian Drosten was reviewed and declared “Gold Standard” in less than 48 hours. A peer-review process normally takes many months. Dr. Simon Goddek, a peer-reviewer himself, showed in detail in his long essay how the fraud happened.31

This crisis itself was “prepared” for a long time. Willis interviewed for his book Dr. David P. Martin, a credentialed doctor and medical expert, founder, and CEO of CAM Inc., a company for property-based financial risk management. One of their fields of expertise is auditing patent quality.

Dr. Martin found out that in the late 1990s, a new and puzzling trend was emerging in that sea of data. During 1999 alone, fifty-nine new patents were issued for medical discoveries related to the “coronavirus” disease family. (…) We know that Anthony Fauci, that Ralph Baric, that the Centers for Disease Control and the laundry list of people who wanted to take credit for inventing coronavirus were at the hub of this story (…) From 2003 and 2018, they controlled 100 percent of the cash flow that built the empire around the industrial complex of coronavirus.25

He discovered a massive patent fraud in the scientific community, by analyzing the digital fingerprints of the filed patents. This way he could track down the grants and their affiliations.

Before long, you see that the Patent Office, the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, and the National Science Foundation are all in this massive collusive network, which is essentially a way to take public funds and underwrite corporate programs, and—probably most egregiously—pay exorbitant amounts of money to universities that rely on federal grants as one of their primary funding sources. Ultimately, the patent represents the commercial greed of an individual or organization, because what they’re trying to do when a patent is filed is the obstruction of the free market, by definition. As a result of that, there is a high incentive to obstruct free markets across the system. And there is a high incentive to lie about it. And it turns out that when nobody was watching the store, both of those happened.25

Mikki Willis, Plandemic: Fear Is the Virus. Truth Is the Cure

This drive of the medical-scientific community to patent life is illegal, says Dr. Martin. Under 35 US Code, Section 101, nature is prohibited from being patented (…) Either SARS coronavirus was manufactured, therefore making a patent on it legal, or it was natural, therefore making a patent on it illegal. If it was manufactured, it was a violation of biological and chemical weapons treaties and laws. If it was natural, filing a patent on it was illegal. In either outcome, both are illegal.25

It will take many years to uncover the whole truth about the scientific fraud and corruption that lead to the outbreak of the coronavirus. Gain-of-function research is dangerous and should be outlawed, as Obama decided in 2014. But it is not enough to outlaw the research in one country because then it gets moved to another country, like China, with less medical security, and the next pandemic will happen. Biological research should be treated like nuclear research. Regulated and far away from civilization (preferably on a ship on the ocean).


  1. John P. A. Ioannidis (2005): Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, 2

  2. David H. Freedman (2010): Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science, 2 3 4 5

  3. Juergen Huber, Sabiou M. Inoua, Rudolf Kerschbamer, Christian König-Kersting, Stefan Palan, and Vernon L. Smith (2022): Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review,>.

  4. Wolfgang Wodarg (2022): Warum liegt die Forschung im Argen?,

  5. Eric Weinstein (2020): 18: Eric Weinstein (Solo) - Slipping the DISC: State of The Portal/Chapter 2020,

  6. Eric Weinstein and Bret Weinstein (2020): 19: Bret Weinstein - The Prediction and the DISC,

  7. Academy of Ideas (2022): Fear Psychosis and the Cult of Safety – Why are People so Afraid?,

  8. Heather Heying (2022): On not being a contrarian,>.

  9. Ross Clark (2020): How deadly is Covid-19?,

  10. John P. A. Ioannidis (2020): Global perspective of COVID-19 epidemiology for a full-cycle pandemic,

  11. John P. A. Ioannidis (2021): Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: An overview of systematic evaluations,

  12. (2022): Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 84 studies,

  13. Tess Lawrie (2022): A Letter to Dr Andrew Hill,

  14. Bret Weinstein and Neil Oliver (2022): Keeping Sane: Bret Speaks with Neil Oliver,

  15. James Lindsay (2021): The Dawn of Medical Lysenkoism,

  16. James Corbett (2020): Who Is Bill Gates?,

  17. TOTT News (2020): The Gates Family, Eugenics and COVID-19,

  18. James B. Stewart, Matthew Goldstein, and Jessica Silver-Greenberg (2019): Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA,

  19. Becky Quick and Bill Gates (2019): Bill Gates and the return on investment in vaccinations,

  20. KP Narayana Kumar (2014): Controversial vaccine studies: Why is Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation under fire from critics in India?,

  21. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (2021): Bill Gates and Neo-Feudalism: A Closer Look at Farmer Bill,

  22. Russel Brand (2021): The Great Reset: Bill Gates & Farming - WHAT’S GOING ON?,

  23. Nick Estes (2021): Bill Gates is the biggest private owner of farmland in the United States. Why?,

  24. Ariel Cohen (2021): A Bill Gates Venture Aims To Spray Dust Into The Atmosphere To Block The Sun. What Could Go Wrong?,

  25. Mikki Willis (2021): Plandemic: Fear Is the Virus. Truth Is the Cure, Skyhorse. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  26. Russel Brand (2022): This Is Impossible To Ignore,

  27. Mark Suzman (2020): Annual Report 2020,

  28. Bernhard Loyen (2021): Die STIKO, eine Expertengruppe für Impf- und Finanzspritzen,

  29. Alexander Wallasch (2022): 1,4 Millionen von Bill Gates für Hirschhausen-Stiftung,

  30. Markus Langemann (2021): Exklusiv. Das Netzwerk-Dokument,

  31. Simon Goddek (2021): How Scientific Fraud took the World Hostage,