Double-Edges of Exponential Scientism

If humans are “bad with exponential growth”, then yes, we can easily fail to detect ubiquitous real dangers in nature. But then we can also easily fail to detect false alarms from both:

1) Those who have studied and know how to select and weave the sensitive initial variables. [1] Being human, they still have some blind spots and world views, even though they attempt to minimize the impact. And…

2) Those who amplify or parrot false alarms with many more blind spots, world views, and side-motives intertwined. 

Omitting these co-factors in this crisis is intellectually dishonest. Dismissing it can also cause great harm. Many of the scientists I’ve heard explain the data behind the Covid19 pandemic suggest much more reasonable reactions than the media, governments, and public. [2,3,4,5,6] They also didn’t seem to [be able to] effectively calm or balance a serious panic given a flood of information. [7,8]

Neil deGrasse Tyson asked about this grand human [control] experiment, “Will people listen to scientists?”. [9] Yes, it seems most people did listen, quite uncritically. But no, scientists should not be the newest priesthood. And ‘pop science’ is more social conditioning than ‘science’. Instead, scientific inquiry should inform ‘we the people’ who are supposed to control our governments.

It is intellectually dishonest to declare a false dichotomy that societal participants have a choice to trust “the science” or not. That is a monolithic, unscientific concept, which promotes othering, deeper division, and potentially violence whenever humans are “on a war footing”. [10]

In a scientific society, people should be fully informed about the uncertainties in each model and related fields, and consciously understand how actionable they find each model. If we are not thoroughly informed about the known unknowns in a field or debate, then we can’t even know how much world experts know they don’t know. 

If our society has representative governance, then everybody must be able to understand and question the basics of the scientific fields being used to govern us — a modern redress of grievances. Otherwise, how can we judge the actions of our elected officials? How else can we give informed consent with our votes for or against exponentially-impactful societal experiments?

For one baseline requirement, let’s think about the cases where big-picture predictions for key metrics are significantly different than observational data. [11] In those cases, emerging evidence should demand a serious reevaluation of how actionable those models are. [12] That would truly raise ‘the scientific method’ and inquiry up in society as it is applied to public policy.

Our society is well past the debate of “listening to science or not”, as a super-majority are absolutely forced to listen when “needed”. Instead, we can focus on debates about what levels of uncertainty we collectively think are actionable in each specific situation, while respecting the consent of our neighbors. I have been actively trying to learn about the known risks. Given the body of science I’ve seen thus far for the novel sub-field of Covid19’s Pandemic Impact, the known uncertainties have moved these models far outside a range that would justify any unprecedented totalitarian policies.

No group has a monopoly on documenting evidence-based inquiry with thorough references. If you think only the most educated and promoted scientists should control the world, then please just be honest about your totalitarian, authoritarian, and/or un-democratic tendencies. But with existing technology, we should already be entering an age of fewer rulers, not more rulers. [13]

If one sensitive input variable is one order of magnitude off, then the end prediction might be several orders of magnitude off. A small error in one premise of a data model (or mainstream narrative) can grow exponentially into a massive error in expectations. 

Working with data points that are challenging or impossible to measure will add further exponential uncertainty to a model. I thought we all agreed about some things during the Nuremberg Trials. [14] Therefore, controlled experiments to inform pandemic reaction models must be relatively rare due to highly fatal risks. Not all of the harder sciences have an equal quantity and quality of data to inform their best conclusions.

We have significant uncertainty on a majority of sensitive variable inputs to some of the most popular ‘consensus’ non-linear models. [15] Under-emphasizing the layered uncertainties does not help increase trust in ‘The Science’ and ‘consensus’. It does not advance the goals of a more evidence-based-society to bully people or politics with scientific predictions that very well may be very wrong. No theory is too big to fail. Good science should be able to defend itself without bullies.

The slur “denier” evolved in reference to tragic historical events that it is intended to evoke, triggering any listener. But how exactly can one “deny” the latest modeled predictions about future events? I guess if “denial” opposes “truths”, then you think these models predicting the future are close enough to represent “truth”. Before data exists to endorse or refute such models, I would call such any position a “belief” (perhaps informed, but often not). I suppose you could say I am “in denial” of your “belief”, but I suspect that’s not what was intended by such othering.

As scientific modeling influences society more, we apparently need massive propaganda pushes to educate people on the uncertainty in complex non-linear modeling. Yes, scientists model nature with everyone’s safety in mind. But they too are limited by data, blind spots, and sometimes narrow groupthink. [16] If we further reduce the number of people who can fully understand what is going on with policy, then widespread understanding and skepticism are even more important to maximize safety. Not just science literacy, but enough understanding for substantive debate and heavy steel manning. [17]

It is also disrespectful to treat us like children given ongoing crises of science. [18,19,20] Authoritarian states treat their subjects like children. With representative governance, we the people treat the state like a child, also guilty of sometimes being exponentially dangerous. 

Do you think Technocratic and Representative governance are not mutually exclusive? To have both, you’ll have to wait until the vast majority of the society is significantly literate of science, exponential growth, and the uncertainty in your favorite non-linear model of the year. If that’s your utopia, I think you’ll have to get crackin’ in that direction, stream more intellectual debates with more than an hour in the weeds, and putting on your ‘patience hat’ for another 50 years. Sorry, not my utopia, not my problem. 

I would prefer incrementally decentralized solutions with calm and informed reactions driven by bottom-up, open-source evidence. [21] If we depend on data models, then they must be heavily replicated and iterated models with high degrees of predictive certainty. The smaller the scale, the greater the possible consent. Call me an idealist, but I truly believe informed consent matters. I did not think the position was extremist.

Whether or not it was valid to treat this pandemic as an existential threat, I am always touched and impressed with the immense decentralized aid in scary times.

For the record…

  1. No. I do not consent to give up any of our remaining freedoms or rights to modern priesthoods like Scientism or National Security without overwhelming evidence.
  2. No. I am not dumb enough to physically fight any piece of the modern totalitarian tip-toe, nor encourage others to do so. Don’t do that. Don’t feed the most dangerous troll in town.
  3. Yes. I support collectively taking reasonable precautions against countless natural and man-made threats, especially when supported by a majority of existing evidence.

Evidently, the public also needs an educational campaign on the reliability of extrapolations made from very sparse data. With minimal evidence on Covid19 and proposed countermeasures, people were asked to jump and many asked, “how high?”.

It seems highly unlikely and under-documented that the mitigation and containment efforts will have had a significant reduction in the overall spread of Covid19. From my personal experience in rural Maryland, I would be shocked if our orders could be scientifically claimed to have a noticeable impact, despite being unprecedented. As far as I can tell thus far, the scientific burden for extraordinary proof is still on those supporting unprecedented forms of population control. (I am always open to integrating new and better evidence, “learning”!-)

After the curve of tragedy passes, many will want to claim the semi-totalitarian measures were primarily responsible for a relative ‘victory’. You can replicate popular estimates of simplified exponential growth models at home, and start looking at the baseline situation to which more mitigation predictions are overlaid. [22] It is an extraordinary claim to say that all the half-measures ordered in some countries/states will reduce cumulative deaths by 80% — let alone 4-6 doublings thus far, or 94-98% — of what the ‘official’ ‘consensus’ variables had predicted. [23] In my mind, those voices have to provide strong evidence on the science behind each measure if they want to justify these behaviors.

Ever since I began trying to understand this pandemic, it has seemed much more likely that the Covid19 might kill 0.6% of those infected in the United States. [24] In that more realistic worst-case scenario, we’re talking about six times the scale of the average seasonal flu season. We could have easily taken reasonable collective action to reduce the impact which is natural but tragic. Encouraging extra hand-washing this season, and even social distancing those over 65+ could be very reasonable. [25] But we did not need a controlled demolition of the economy, inevitably increasing the concentrations of wealth and inequity, with the first 3.3 million Americans filing claims for unemployment. [26] And no ‘capitalist’ mega-corporation is too big to fail.

50% of exponential growth is still exponential growth. A 25%-50% reduction in the spread might “flatten the curve”, but it cannot create a curve.

So dearest real and social media friends, please start including scientific studies and meta-analyses supporting each totalitarian reaction you are endorsing. Please figure out approximately how many different experiments provide hard evidence directly for and against the given conclusions? How many of those experiments have been replicated at least once? If you want Technocracy, then this is my minimal request. [27]

If ‘the science’ that most people ‘fucking love’ could never be used for evil — witting OR unwitting — then Monsanto wouldn’t exist, atomic bombs would never have dropped… the list of exponentially-scaled man-made tragedies is long. [28,29,30] We all love Newtonian physics that automate much of our lives, our electronic age, and the budding information age. But for non-linear models of nature, most ‘science lovers’ usually pass their vote directly to ‘the scientific consensus’ of the moment, even if backed by just a few studies. Most formally educated minds have long been explicitly propagandized to do so, and now to socially pressure others to “follow orders”. [31,32]

Some do not even want me to publicly question information and data used to endorse totalitarian policies. Please recognize just how totalitarian that is. Many of us have long had our eye on the gradual closing of the ‘freest society in the world’ and can sometimes smell false authorities from a few news cycles away. You need us ‘skeptics’ to help keep the misuse of science in check. I completely agree, this is not a political or partisan game, but as serious as life and death. I was too scared to speak up for eight years after 9/11, and I will not self-censor whenever we are forced to enter any “post-_____ world”.

When in Oceania, do as the Oceanians do. [33] Panic into endless wars against invisible enemies, based on inadequate or privileged evidence. No, the military is not on most streets. No authority needs or wants to use physical control when they have mass mind control. [34] If people were protesting or rioting in the streets, would you demand the militarized police enforce the scientific consensus? For now, there is still enough bread and circus for fun and chill in our Brave New World. [35]

My apologies if my tone feels harsh. I don’t think I’m as scared as most who currently feel certain that if left unchecked, Covid19 will kill millions or tens of millions globally. Instead it seems more likely, and still massively tragic, that 100-200,000 will have tested positive for Covid19 playing some role in their death. [36] This is closer to the range of the Swine Flu Pandemic that did not up-end the world economy. [37] If this prediction ends up being more accurate, and if we had never identified and tracked Covid19, it might have easily gone unnoticed this flu season. And either way, we must keep working on big co-factors like health care and air pollution which is directly toxic to our immune systems.

I’m doing my best to stay calm to keep thinking clearly. Don’t forget to take extra deep breathes and find comfort in our shared realities within the countless forms of Love. I do hope people stay healthy, that we can directly protect the most vulnerable, that health care is finally reformed and dramatically improved, and wish testing created actionable evidence a month or two ago.

I still find it an extraordinary claim with insufficient evidence that the first 1-2,000 deaths in the U.S. will grow to some 1.1-2.2 million — the scale of predictions driving popular reactions. [38] So I am also sad and scared about the totalitarian precedents set in reactions which thus far seem to be creating a much greater human and social harm. If the new normal is holding the world hostage with weak data, then we need to sit down and have a serious talk about our social arrangement. [39,40]

How much of the country is similarly concerned about the new precedents for public consent to reshuffling the world? We won’t know until we feel like we can at least speak our minds, and compare conclusions based on existing evidence. <3


Morgan Lesko is a software engineer who wants collective decisions to be more evidence-based, especially wherever consent is likely to be violated. I only have a B.S. from the University of Maryland in 2005 for Computer Science with a concentration in Mathematics. I do not claim this is a rigorous scientific inquiry. This is just a thought piece with footnotes…

[1] “Neil deGrasse Tyson – “Accessory to War” & Arming Society with Knowledge”, Oct 7, 2018, The Daily Show
“But the thing is — think about it — if you have knowledge of nature phenomenon of the universe and you have nefarious motives, you can exploit anybody who does not. And so for me, science literacy is so important in modern civilization. So it is inoculation against people who would otherwise exploit your ignorance of the phenomenon of the world.”

[2] “12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic”, Mar 24, 2020, Off-Guardian
“Below is our list of twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the MSM, and the memes so prevalent on social media.”

[3] “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data”, Mar 17, 2020, by John P.A. Ioannidis
“The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300.”

“John P.A. Ioannidis is professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine, professor by courtesy of statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) at Stanford University.”

[4] “Corona virus COVID-19- hype and hysteria? Demystification of the nightmare!”, Mar 19, 2020, Prof. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi

[5] “Coronavirus on the March: Bad Bugs, Public Health and Global Security”, Mar 12, 2020, Dr. James Wilson, Founder and CEO, M2 Medical Intelligence, Inc., Reno, Nevada

[6] “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data”, Mar 19, 2020, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
“In OECD countries. the mortality rate for SARS-CoV-2 (1.3%) is not significantly different from that for common coronaviruses identified at the study hospital in France (0.8%; P=0.11).

The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.”!

[7] “Open Letter from Professor Sucharit Bhakdi to German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel”, Mar 26, 2020
“It is therefore reasonable to suspect that the virus has already spread unnoticed in the healthy population. This would have two consequences: firstly, it would mean that the official death rate – on 26 March 2020, for example, there were 206 deaths from around 37,300 infections, or 0.55 percent [5] – is too high; and secondly, it would mean that it would hardly be possible to prevent the virus from spreading in the healthy population.

My question: Has there already been a random sample of the healthy general population to validate the real spread of the virus, or is this planned in the near future?

One of these factors is the increased air pollution in the north of Italy. According to WHO estimates, this situation, even without the virus, led to over 8,000 additional deaths per year in 2006 in the 13 largest cities in Italy alone. [7] The situation has not changed significantly since then. [8] Finally, it has also been shown that air pollution greatly increases the risk of viral lung diseases in very young and elderly people. [9]

Moreover, 27.4 percent of the particularly vulnerable population in this country live with young people, and in Spain as many as 33.5 percent. In Germany, the figure is only seven percent [10].”

[8] “Event 201 Pandemic Exercise: Segment 4, Communications Discussion and Epilogue Video”, Nov 4, 2019, Center for Health Security
“Event 201 is a [coronavirus] pandemic tabletop exercise hosted by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated the pandemic preparedness efforts needed to diminish the large-scale economic and societal consequences of a severe pandemic.

Drawing from actual events, Event 201 identifies important policy issues and preparedness challenges that could be solved with sufficient political will and attention. These issues were designed in a narrative to engage and educate the participants and the audience.”

[9] “Neil deGrasse Tyson On Coronavirus: Will People Listen To Science?”, Mar 7, 2020, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

[10] “Other (philosophy)”, Mar 29, 2020, Wikipedia
“The term Othering describes the reductive action of labelling and defining a person as a subaltern native, as someone who belongs to the socially subordinate category of the Other. The practice of Othering excludes persons who do not fit the norm of the social group, which is a version of the Self;[7] likewise, in human geography, the practice of othering persons means to exclude and displace them from the social group to the margins of society, where mainstream social norms do not apply to them, for being the Other.[8]”

[11] “IPCC Models vs. IPCC Data”, March 2015, by Morgan Lesko
“The jury will still be considered out regarding the theory’s trend projections for another 25-75 years pending long-term observational data…no matter how much more we study related issues in the mean time. Until then, the burden of proof does really remain with the theory, not its skeptics, and the theory is surely not ‘settled’ without long-term data testing its hypothesis.

If ‘the data is in’, the ‘science is settled’, and the relevant time period of this experiment is only 25 years, then we could more confidently reject the theory than endorse it based on the data observed thus far.

In this example of the 15 year warming hiatus, the IPCC mentions that 111 out of 114 simulation runs overshot the observed temperatures (97%).”

[12] “Nakamura Mototaka’s Book, “Confessions of a climate scientist””, Dec 7, 2019, by Morgan Lesko
Nakamura: “These models completely lack some of the critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.

I find it rather bewildering that so many climate researchers … appear to firmly believe in the validity of using these models for climate forecasting.”

[13] “Ascent of Humanity: The Evolution of the Human Sense of Self”, 2013, by Charles Eisenstein 
“This is a large book which tackles today’s social and environmental troubles on a fundamental level. It addresses the evolution of life as a process of incremental separation from ones environment. Eisenstein traces the modern alienation a looong way back (before protozoa!) and takes a detailed look at what is happening around the world, putting forward an animist view of spirituality that emphasises the fundamental connectedness of all life.” FREE AUDIOBOOK! <3

[14] “NMT Case 1 – U.S.A. v. Karl Brandt et al.: The Doctors’ Trial” 
“The Medical Case, U.S.A. vs. Karl Brandt, et al. (also known as the Doctors’ Trial), was prosecuted in 1946-47 against twenty-three doctors and administrators accused of organizing and participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the form of medical experiments and medical procedures inflicted on prisoners and civilians.”

[15] “Warm Consensus Pie”, March 2015, by Morgan Lesko
“I wanted to take a closer look at the 97% climate change consensus study seen everywhere. Thankfully, the “most comprehensive analysis performed to date” had shared their data categorizing 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on the topic!

Scientific Consensus: 0.6% of Papers Endorse A Position Which Can Be Proven False, Quantifiably”

[16] “Groupthink”, Mar 29, 2020, Wikipedia
“Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs.[1] This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the “ingroup” produces an “illusion of invulnerability” (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the “ingroup” significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the “outgroup”). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the “outgroup”. Members of a group can often feel peer pressure to “go along with the crowd” in fear of rocking the boat or of what them speaking up will do to the overall to how their teammates perceive them. Group interactions tend to favor, clear and harmonious agreements and it can be a cause for concern when little to no new innovations or arguments for better policies, outcomes and structures are called to question. (McLeod). Groupthink can often be referred to as a group of “yes men” because group activities and group projects in general make it extremely easy to pass on not offering constructive opinions.”

[17] “Straw Man”, Mar 29, 2020, RationalWiki
“Steelmanning is a neologism for the principle of charity, coined on LessWrong by Scott Alexander, in analogy to “straw man”. The principle of charity is the maxim that in debate, one should take the strongest possible understanding of the opponent’s position. It is a warning against the straw man argument. Only if you defeat the strongest possible version of your opponent’s argument can you say that you’ve robustly defeated their position.

Related to steelmanning is the Ideological Turing Test, which asserts: If someone understands their opponent’s belief so well that they can convince a blinded observer who is a true believer, and yet still not actually believe it, there’s a good chance that that belief is wrong.[3][4][5] The first part of this test is useful: if you can repeat somebody’s argument back to them in such a way that they agree with everything you say (and do not wish you had included more), then you have properly understood/summarized their position. However, the second part is not: just because you can understand somebody else’s view fully, but still reject it, does not mean that their belief is incorrect. This is because your rejection of their belief is based on additional beliefs that you hold, which may be incorrect or which they may not accept.”

[18] “The Crisis of Science (is worse than you think)”, Jul 30, 2016, The Corbett Report
“You may have heard of “the crisis of science” recently. The idea that there is something massively wrong with the way science is being conducted these days is not a fringe anti-science idea anymore. It’s being discussed in lamestream milquetoast publications like The Washington Post, The Economist and The Times Higher Education Supplement, and even mainstream science publications like Scientific American, Nature and”

[19] “The Crisis of Science”, Feb 24, 2019, The Corbett Report

[20] “Andrea Saltelli on The Crisis of Science”, Mar 7, 2019, The Corbett Report

[21] “Solutions: Open Science”, Mar 23, 2019, The Corbett Report

[22] “IF Covid19 Infections Doubled Every 5 Days…”, Mar 23, 2020, by Morgan Lesko
“Most of the earliest cases would be very unlikely to be identified or controlled, let alone ‘hermetically sealed’ between country lines. Only a few subsets would have been significantly controlled. It is precisely because of exponential growth that I personally assume this virus covered the world months ago, and is not nearly as dangerous as infinitely repeated estimates.”

[23] “Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand”, Mar 16, 2020, Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team
“…even if all patients were able to be treated, we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1-1.2 million in the US.”

[24] “#191 – Early Thoughts on a Pandemic: A Conversation with Amesh Adalja”, Mar 11, 2020, Making Sense Podcast
“They discuss the contagiousness of the virus and the severity of the resultant illness, the mortality rate and risk factors, vectors of transmission, how long coronavirus can live on surfaces, the importance of social distancing, possible anti-viral treatments, the timeline for a vaccine, the importance of pandemic preparedness, and other topics.

Amesh Adalja, MD, is an infectious disease specialist at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. His work is focused on emerging infectious disease, pandemic preparedness, and biosecurity. Amesh has served on US government panels tasked with developing guidelines for the treatment of plague, botulism, and anthrax. …”

[25] “Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses”, Jul 2011, Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
“Respiratory virus spread can be reduced by hygienic measures (such as handwashing), especially around younger children. Frequent handwashing can also reduce transmission from children to other household members.

There is insufficient evidence to support screening at entry ports and social distancing (spatial separation of at least one metre between those infected and those non‐infected) as a method to reduce spread during epidemics.”

[26] “Record 3.3m Americans file for unemployment as the US tries to contain Covid-19; Labor department figures show the number of claims rose to 3.3 million, beating a previous record of 695,000 in October 1982”, Mar 26, 2020, The Guardian

[27] “Patrick Wood: Technocracy Rising Interview” (Part 1-3), Sep 11, 2015, Tragedy & Hope
“Patrick Wood is an author and lecturer who has studied elite globalization policies since the late 1970’s, when he partnered with the late Antony C. Sutton to coauthor Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II. He remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order.”

Part 1: Energy based Currency, Columbia University origins of Technocracy, Eugenics, Population Control, and Agenda 21, origins of Positivism and Scientism; Part 2: Trilaterals, CFR, Rockefellers, U.N., 1992 Rio Conference, Agenda 21 and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); Part 3: Wood’s work with Antony C. Sutton, the Origins of the Trilateral Commission, Trilaterals and Larry King, and how the Trilateral Commission influenced the U.S. Govt. since 1973 to present day.”

[28] “Please Compartmentalize “the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs””, Aug 16, 2016, by Morgan Lesko
“With the increasing complexity of the human knowledge-base, every discipline organically becomes increasingly compartmentalized due to its required specificity. This means the vast majority of scientists cannot be considered an authority on the work done by the vast majority of other scientists, and scholarly critique (checks and balances) must also be largely compartmentalized.”

[29] “Compartmentalized Conspiracies: Would Anyone Have Talked?”, Dec 21, 2019, by Morgan Lesko
“Yes, there are many plausible reasons that “unwitting accomplices” or “helpers against knowledge” might not become whistleblowers. A lot could depend on how an individual’s handler or manager (from the higher tier) frames the situation for them.”

[30] “Our New Technocratic Lords”, Sep 25, 2015, minivanjack

[31] “The Underground History of American Education: An Intimate Investigation into the Prison of Modern Schooling”, 2001, by John Taylor Gatto
“A book which tells the previously untold story of schooling as not an altruistic enterprise of enlightened men to benefit their fellow man, but an effort by rich industrialist and eugenicists to preserve their power and influence by “Dumbing Down” their fellow man to the point at which he would willing accept a life of gloomy servitude in their factories. Gatto spent 9 years writing this book, after discovering primary sources, such as minutes of the industrialists’ meetings, often painted a very different picture from that which later propaganda would have people believe.” FREE AUDIOBOOK! <3

[32] “Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives”, 2000, by Jeff Schmidt
“This book explains the social agenda of the process of professional training. Disciplined Minds shows how it is used to promote orthodoxy by detecting and weeding out dissident candidates and by exerting pressure on the rest to obey their instructors and abandon personal agendas such as social reform — so that they, in turn, can perpetuate the system by squeezing the life out of the next generation.

Shortly after writing this book, Jeff Schmidt was fired from his position as Editor of the academic journal, Physics Today. After many years of legal battling, he was judged to have been dismissed without good cause, awarded a considerable sum of damages and reappointed, whereupon he swiftly resigned.” FREE AUDIOBOOK! <3

[33] “Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four”, Mar 29, 2020, Wikipedia
“Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are the three fictional superstates in George Orwell’s dystopian satire 1984, later published under the title Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Since all that Oceania’s citizens know about the world is whatever the Party want them to know, how the world evolved into the three states is unknown, and it is also unknown to the reader whether they actually exist in the novel’s reality or whether they are a storyline invented by the Party to advance social control.”

[34] “The Minds of Men”, 2018, by Aaron & Melissa Dykes
“What is the Science of Government? The Minds of Men is a three-year investigation into the experimentation, art, and practice of social engineering and mind control during the Cold War… A mind-bending journey into the past that gives startling insight into the world we are living in today.”


[35] “Brave New World Revisited”, 1958, by Aldous Huxley (Non-Fiction)

[36] “The Anatomy of Covid-19”, Mar 30, 2020, James True with Dr. Andrew Kaufman
“Humanity is not a virus. Covid-19 is an attack on humanity. Everyone in America can test positive for Covid-19 assuming they have an immune system. What they’re calling a test is not a test – its a scarlet letter. The coronavirus is the body’s exosomes. These are secreted by the cells under numerous conditions. Duke-trained Doctor Andrew Kaufman explains it all in a concise 30-minute presentation. After, you hear laymen like myself ask questions. Please share, steal, reupload, monetize, condense, and spread as you see fit.

You are the land’s immune system. This video is everything you need to spread the word. Call out the Minutemen who will still listen. Tell them we need them now more than ever.”

[37] “2009 Swine Flu Pandemic”, Mar 29, 2020, Wikipedia
“Deaths: 18,036 (WHO confirmed) [7]
284,000–575,000 (CDC estimation) [8]”

[38] “Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now – Politicians, Community Leaders and Business Leaders: What Should You Do and When?”, Mar 10, 2020, by Tomas Pueyo
“If you want to be safe, do it Wuhan style. People might complain now, but they’ll thank you later.”

[39] “The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution”, 1928, H. G. Wells (Non-Fiction)
“The book is, in Wells’s words, a “scheme to thrust forward and establish a human control over the destinies of life and liberate it from its present dangers, uncertainties and miseries.” It proposes that largely as the result of scientific progress, a common vision of a world “politically, socially and economically unified” is emerging among educated and influential people, and that this can be the basis of “a world revolution aiming at universal peace, welfare and happy activity” that can result in the establishment of a “world commonwealth”. This is to be achieved by “drawing together a proportion of all or nearly all the functional classes in contemporary communities in order to weave the beginnings of a world community out of their selection.” This will ultimately “be a world religion.” Still topical in light of the conflicts resulting from efforts to establish the European Community and the New Global Order.”

[40] “The New World Order”, 1940, H. G. Wells (Non-Fiction)
“The New World Order is an important book by novelist H. G. Wells and features his belief that it would be beneficial to the world if a new world order ruled the world which would united all the worlds people and at the same time cause war to no longer exist. This is an excellent book for individuals who are interested in reading about H. G. Wells New World Order belief as well as people who are fans of his writings.”


Dec 31 Addition: Interesting study mentioned during hearings.
Evidence for Health Decision Making — Beyond Randomized, Controlled Trials