How to Fight the War on Science and Win
Jonathan Foley

I haven’t read ‘Merchants of Doubt’ but to suggest that scientists should close themselves off to doubt, or that citizen scientists ought to, is not only unscientific, it’s unequivocally irresponsible.

All of our sciences have histories. When those histories demonstrate irrefutable findings contrary to accepted “modern” medicine, imperialists are upset. When CDC issues the order to destroy those findings, or from the introduction of inoculation the whole history of scientific opposition gets archived, and today’s scientists and doctors are faced with the undeniable proof something is very, very wrong going down on a daily basis and have to risk their lives and careers to get them out of archive to publish them, such as ‘Dissolving Illusions,’ an incomparably important work, then we are not practicing science. We are practicing capitalism and fascism and a bad religion. Or, Zuckbergism in his anti-intuition, anti-empirical knowledge regime, Biohub.

The media was a different animal during the outbreaks of polio. So when groups of people vigilantly protested the removal of DDT from the market that was causing the “polio virus’ ” symptoms and paralysis in their children living near sprayed fields, media could “contain” that news. They timed the forced removal of DDT with the introduction of what they called the “polio vaccine” and the groups who knew better had no viable media means of getting what had happened out to the greater public. The study of the case of Polio is actually the vaccine that ripped the lid off the entire field and the plan to gain access to every person’s body on the planet with the effect of 58,000 people parallelized in India which btw has just successfully removed Gates’ foundation from being the tzar of vaccinating their population, “nodding disease” and autism in Africa, both never seen there prior to Gates’ vaccination program, a Supreme Court ruling that “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe,” and another Supreme Court ruling had to actually throw out an attempt to patent human beings on the basis of “recombinant DNA via vaccinations, approx 1/2 million families in US affected with fatalities including SIDS or permanent life-altering brain damage and a very long list of health problems from asthma to ADHD. And pharma’s defense is to call these families “crazy.”

An all out assault on our immune systems is being waged, and fantastically, is being called a “miracle” of “modern medicine,” while there is no such thing as a “vaccine preventable disease.” The phrase is an oxymoron. When they claim “vaccines work” they are not lying though: the stated aim of vaccines is to stimulate antigens on the theory that this will cause immunity, and while that is the general idea of how our immunity does work naturally, it is not entirely known how our bodies naturally healed these viruses to 95% in both the US and UK before inoculations brought them back, before we were even near the understanding (we long thought we had the body fully mapped — we didn’t) some immunologists have today of how the immune system does work, at the at the end of the 1800's. What is known is that clean food, air, water and probiotics such as from the raw milk we had been drinking for thousands of years before turning it into a dead, indigestible food, supports immune function. And toxins assault it.

Artificially producing immune response (by stimulating our bodies’ production of antigens) however, it turns out and many recent “outbreaks” have proven, does not prevent disease. Stimulating our bodies to produce antigens, which vaccines do accomplish for sure, is being shown again and again to fail to prevent contracting the disease vaccinated against and those vaccinated are spreading those diseases via the 28 day period of shedding. The outbreaks we’re seeing are not among the not vaccinated. They are among groups with high percentages of having been vaccinated and their diseases are being unnecessarily, or, unnaturally, spread by shedding. The assurance of safety promised by vaccinating does not exist but the risk is painfully real, and the risk is maximal with each separate shot. No one is immune to the danger of a vaccine.

Meanwhile, the CDC is not an objective governmental organization and holds around 50 patents itself, while 100% of all pharma’s liability for their products was dissolved in the late 80’s. Around the same time Trump was being shopped to the public on Oprah and a separate vaccine court was created to allocate the taxes on vaccines paid for by the consumers of them, to the victims of them. So far, about 3 billion has been awarded for vaccine caused autism. Autism, you see, is a listed side effect on many of the inserts.

It is necessary for our survival as human beings to grasp the difference between corporate owned globalization that is holding our planet’s ecology as ransom for power and our ability to steer globalization into cooperative, direct global democracy.

Censorship is not responsibility. It is trademark of incompetence and inferiority, lack of truth and is not science by any means. Please read up beyond mainstream media’s collection of outlets owned by 6 corporations. Take the challenge: “Robert Kennedy (head of our vaccine safety committee) is giving $100,000 to “anybody who can turn up a study showing that it is safe to administer vaccines to children and pregnant women”. Since you “do your research”, there you go, free money.” See: World Mercury Project. No matter who the presidents are, ruler-reps are never our friends. Nor their media. Don’t buy their wars. See Bought, Vaxxed, Trace Amounts and many other books and films.

We are in a renaissance of information being shared directly from scientists democratically, some strictly peer-review and some and pre-review with the public, whose taxes paid for the research, bypassing our CIA owned “free press,” such as WaPo. On open Access model:

“The traditional publishing process is systematically used by established scientists to frustrate and block significant innovations in science which challenge their professional position, and which might prejudice their access to research grants. SJI fulfils a role which is desperately needed in science publishing, a breath of fresh air in a traditional scientific world where established scientists maintain a stranglehold on what new ideas can be circulated. We all need to get away from the truism that, in the past, “science progresses funeral by funeral.” 
 Dr. Clive Delmonte, Associate Lecturer, Open University, United Kingdom.

Here is Richard Horton’s public statement, editor-in-chief of the British medical journal The Lancet:

“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

Source: and article:

Thomas J. Roberts, EdD and Jennifer Shambrook, PhD admit,

“For example, the intellectual community should be one that “fosters the development of new knowledge by encouraging scholarly debate and intellectual risk taking.” When “elitists” and “gatekeepers” interfere with this by imposing their own bias and restricting access to new knowledge it holds back the advancement of science.”

Read a world renowned scientist on the condition “modern” science has contracted:

Dig, think, give up intuition for nothing, investigate deeper. Science is not a luxury to peruse for talking points. Our lives and the quality of our lives and our children’s and theirs depends on Truth, our own completest understanding we can manage and continually edify — with an awareness of the context in which society struggled against a Romanized political machine that would turn truth on its head and the world inside out to not have us not know which is true and which, false; an abiding respect for and honesty with respect to our own first-hand empirical experience. Experience is, after all, the reason empirical knowledge is empirical and always will be or, so long as we vigilantly defend our right to our own human DNA.