We live in an age of psychological manipulation. Information theory gives us a powerful perspective for protecting ourselves from the propaganda, gaslighting, and disinformation that surround us.
Here's some quotes from major medical journal editors about the corruption in medical science. It's pretty bad . .
"Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.20 The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, AS THE POWERFUL BECOME MORE SUCCESSFUL, RICHER AND FURTHER INTOXICATED WITH POWER, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die."
“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 editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” (my emphasasis)
"It's unusual to watch one of the world's most powerful editors in scientific publishing play with a marionette puppet.
But Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, specializes in the unexpected.
The puppet she's holding is dressed as a doctor, complete with a stethoscope around its neck. Its strings represent the hidden hand of the pharmaceutical industry.
'I think we have to call it what it is. It is a corruption of the scientific process.' -Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ "
Another quote from the article
"It's led me and others to increasingly question the idea that the manufacturer of the drug could ever be considered the right people to evaluate its effectiveness and safety," Godlee says.
"That seems to me to be very mad idea which has grown up historically, and we have to start questioning it and we have to come up with alternatives, which would mean independent studies done by independent bodies."
And it matters, Godlee says, because bad science can be dangerous.
Thanks for this Peter. Money corrupts and obscene amounts of money corrupt absolutely. When I was in grad school in mathematics in the 1980s, my friends in the division of physical sciences (which included mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.) were not motivated by money. I would rather have been able to prove an important theorem than have a million dollars. But all that seems to have changed through the corrupting effects of money (the love of which, according to the Apostle Paul, is the root of all evil). I'm thinking some sort of vast decentralization is needed. Perhaps remove all federal funding of science and move it to the states. Perhaps put all academies of science at the state level (the National Academy of Sciences has become a self-selecting club). Perhaps rescind all pharmaceutical patents that were partly sponsored by tax dollars. Certainly, stop the flow of talent between industries and their regulators. Lots of possibilities here -- if someone can get a hold of the wheel and steer the car correctly!
Few ask where the frame comes from? Who is pulling the strings? It does not come from a specific group of so called experts. What the puppeteers have learned in recent years especially since COVID is how to pull the strings that move the experts. But who are these puppeteers? Are the so called experts really just marionettes themselves who are also being manipulated? Are we just railing against the wrong people. What are the puppeteers objectives? Are the experts the ultimate decoy?
Second, information theory should begin with A and ~A which by definition is exhaustive. Then Hobson choices would disappear. What hit me in the green vegetable example was that the choice was not between healthy foods and non healthy foods. If that had been the choice, the chocolate chip ice cream would have been eliminated immediately. The whole discussion would be different. It would be which healthy foods and how much?
Third, everyone should be aware of the availability cascade. This phenomenon more than anything determines beliefs in the world. Always has.
Thanks for the tips on using IT against Psyc warfare Bill. One of my favourite characters in history is William Wilberforce. I asked an AI engine “How would Wiliam Wilberforce use Information Theory as a Shield Against Psychological Warfare today if he was still fighting slavery?”. I realise the IT definition that the AI is using doesn't fully align with yours Bill, but never-the-less, the answer was surprisingly encouraging: “Imagine Wilberforce leveraging Information Theory to outsmart those spreading falsehoods about slavery, much like how he used his eloquence in Parliament. He'd use data analytics to detect patterns of misinformation, then strategically counter with clear, compelling truths. He'd harness social media algorithms to amplify accurate narratives, ensuring they reach wider, more diverse audiences swiftly. By pinpointing influential voices within the abolition movement, he'd optimize communication efforts, making each message more impactful and harder for opponents to distort. In essence, Wilberforce would use modern technology to turn the tide of public opinion even more effectively than he did in his time, safeguarding the integrity of the anti-slavery message against psychological manipulation. Quite a strategic genius, don't you think?”
Thanks for another insightful article. As far as I am concerned, the worst kind of "gaslighting" is what the Democrats and the mainstream media are doing to Donald Trump --- accusing him of all the things that they themselves are doing and intend to continue doing if they win. Little things like "ending democracy" and "persecuting political adversaries," for example. What is truly alarming is how many people are falling right into their trap. Once they figure out what is going on, it will be too late to do anything about it without lots of pain and upheaval. Let's hope and pray it doesn't come to that.
Was it Ford who said "you can have a car in any color you want as long as it is black"?
I can't count the number of times we were told "it was your choice" - implying we chose to lose our jobs, etc etc etc. Yes, we chose to wait to see how the rollout of the vax would go, and then chose to not get it based on the evidence we were seeing, but who chooses the consequences? In my meeting with HR Sept 2021 I proposed an alternative to the choice I was presented with. My boss said "That is logical but I can't restructure the financial system of the school to accommodate you." Somehow, my refusal to comply with the mandates was connected to money. The love of which...
The consequences of the choice should have followed logically, but they did not.
My boss claimed he had no choice but to enforce the mandates. He had a choice to think critically and contrarily, and I truly believe at the outset he did, but something happened to switch that for him. It was as if, by accepting the perceived infallibility of the imposed frame, he became infallible as well.
I appreciated your reference to the necessity of armor. We are in a fight against powers that are attempting to frame themselves as the only option. Thankfully, there is hope beyond that. I don't have to wonder who wins in the end.
Here's some quotes from major medical journal editors about the corruption in medical science. It's pretty bad . .
"Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.20 The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, AS THE POWERFUL BECOME MORE SUCCESSFUL, RICHER AND FURTHER INTOXICATED WITH POWER, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die."
KAMRAN Abbasi, executive editor BMJ, 2020.
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425
J
“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 editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” (my emphasasis)
Marcia Angell 2004
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572812/#!po=87.5000
HJ
2016
"It's unusual to watch one of the world's most powerful editors in scientific publishing play with a marionette puppet.
But Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, specializes in the unexpected.
The puppet she's holding is dressed as a doctor, complete with a stethoscope around its neck. Its strings represent the hidden hand of the pharmaceutical industry.
'I think we have to call it what it is. It is a corruption of the scientific process.' -Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ "
Another quote from the article
"It's led me and others to increasingly question the idea that the manufacturer of the drug could ever be considered the right people to evaluate its effectiveness and safety," Godlee says.
"That seems to me to be very mad idea which has grown up historically, and we have to start questioning it and we have to come up with alternatives, which would mean independent studies done by independent bodies."
And it matters, Godlee says, because bad science can be dangerous.
"Patients do get hurt."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bmj-fiona-godlee-science-1.3541769 6th
"Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?" ( Richard Smith) Former editor of the BMJ).
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/
Thanks for this Peter. Money corrupts and obscene amounts of money corrupt absolutely. When I was in grad school in mathematics in the 1980s, my friends in the division of physical sciences (which included mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.) were not motivated by money. I would rather have been able to prove an important theorem than have a million dollars. But all that seems to have changed through the corrupting effects of money (the love of which, according to the Apostle Paul, is the root of all evil). I'm thinking some sort of vast decentralization is needed. Perhaps remove all federal funding of science and move it to the states. Perhaps put all academies of science at the state level (the National Academy of Sciences has become a self-selecting club). Perhaps rescind all pharmaceutical patents that were partly sponsored by tax dollars. Certainly, stop the flow of talent between industries and their regulators. Lots of possibilities here -- if someone can get a hold of the wheel and steer the car correctly!
I have a few comments:
Few ask where the frame comes from? Who is pulling the strings? It does not come from a specific group of so called experts. What the puppeteers have learned in recent years especially since COVID is how to pull the strings that move the experts. But who are these puppeteers? Are the so called experts really just marionettes themselves who are also being manipulated? Are we just railing against the wrong people. What are the puppeteers objectives? Are the experts the ultimate decoy?
Second, information theory should begin with A and ~A which by definition is exhaustive. Then Hobson choices would disappear. What hit me in the green vegetable example was that the choice was not between healthy foods and non healthy foods. If that had been the choice, the chocolate chip ice cream would have been eliminated immediately. The whole discussion would be different. It would be which healthy foods and how much?
Third, everyone should be aware of the availability cascade. This phenomenon more than anything determines beliefs in the world. Always has.
https://effectiviology.com/availability-cascade/
Thanks for the tips on using IT against Psyc warfare Bill. One of my favourite characters in history is William Wilberforce. I asked an AI engine “How would Wiliam Wilberforce use Information Theory as a Shield Against Psychological Warfare today if he was still fighting slavery?”. I realise the IT definition that the AI is using doesn't fully align with yours Bill, but never-the-less, the answer was surprisingly encouraging: “Imagine Wilberforce leveraging Information Theory to outsmart those spreading falsehoods about slavery, much like how he used his eloquence in Parliament. He'd use data analytics to detect patterns of misinformation, then strategically counter with clear, compelling truths. He'd harness social media algorithms to amplify accurate narratives, ensuring they reach wider, more diverse audiences swiftly. By pinpointing influential voices within the abolition movement, he'd optimize communication efforts, making each message more impactful and harder for opponents to distort. In essence, Wilberforce would use modern technology to turn the tide of public opinion even more effectively than he did in his time, safeguarding the integrity of the anti-slavery message against psychological manipulation. Quite a strategic genius, don't you think?”
Thanks for another insightful article. As far as I am concerned, the worst kind of "gaslighting" is what the Democrats and the mainstream media are doing to Donald Trump --- accusing him of all the things that they themselves are doing and intend to continue doing if they win. Little things like "ending democracy" and "persecuting political adversaries," for example. What is truly alarming is how many people are falling right into their trap. Once they figure out what is going on, it will be too late to do anything about it without lots of pain and upheaval. Let's hope and pray it doesn't come to that.
Another perceptive, spot on piece of writing.
Was it Ford who said "you can have a car in any color you want as long as it is black"?
I can't count the number of times we were told "it was your choice" - implying we chose to lose our jobs, etc etc etc. Yes, we chose to wait to see how the rollout of the vax would go, and then chose to not get it based on the evidence we were seeing, but who chooses the consequences? In my meeting with HR Sept 2021 I proposed an alternative to the choice I was presented with. My boss said "That is logical but I can't restructure the financial system of the school to accommodate you." Somehow, my refusal to comply with the mandates was connected to money. The love of which...
The consequences of the choice should have followed logically, but they did not.
My boss claimed he had no choice but to enforce the mandates. He had a choice to think critically and contrarily, and I truly believe at the outset he did, but something happened to switch that for him. It was as if, by accepting the perceived infallibility of the imposed frame, he became infallible as well.
How is the frame established? Who sets and communicates the limited choices allowed? Toby Rogers wrote an insightful piece that addresses a bit of this question https://brownstone.org/articles/hypnosis-stockholm-syndrome-and-hegemony/
(Julie Ponesse's excerpt was a balm to read as well https://brownstone.org/articles/hope-and-moral-repair/ )
I appreciated your reference to the necessity of armor. We are in a fight against powers that are attempting to frame themselves as the only option. Thankfully, there is hope beyond that. I don't have to wonder who wins in the end.
Thank you for standing firm and speaking truth.
Thanks for this perceptive comment, Bonnie. It becomes quickly evident when people are caving.