Throughout the Covid era, those expressing views at odds with the dominant narrative were often subjected to unprecedented levels of censorship and psychological manipulation. Academic journals played a significant role in this silencing of alternative voices by, for example, ignoring the work of established scholars, perpetuating bias, rejecting research papers that reached conclusions inconsistent with mainstream views, and demonstrating a financial motivation to only publish studies favourable to the pharmaceutical industry. As a consequence of this partiality, the perceived scientific integrity of academic periodicals has suffered considerable damage. Alas, a recent article in the once highly respected Nature journal will have done nothing to improve the credibility of the academic press.
The article, titled “Mastering the art of persuasion during a pandemic“, is a supplementary ‘outlook’ piece written by Elizabeth Svoboda, a Californian science journalist. Drawing on the perspectives of a cluster of social science experts, Svoboda lauds the importance of health policymakers deploying “effective communication strategies” so as to ensure that the populace do the right things when faced with the next global pandemic. She asserts that a range of behavioural science strategies, or “nudges”, will be of central importance in enhancing compliance with public health restrictions when the next novel respiratory virus emerges over the horizon. The article, however, is riddled with highly questionable assumptions and ideological biases.
The Covid science is not settled
Arguably the most blatant distortion, illustrated many times by both the author and the experts cited, is that the Covid science is settled and their version is the definitive truth. The article opens with the ludicrous suggestion that the official advice in early 2020 – that masking healthy people would achieve no benefit – was a “fateful moment”, a missed opportunity “to stop the virus bringing the world to a halt”. In support of this assertion, Rob Willer, a sociologist at Stanford University, describes this initial guidance as “a big credibility mistake”, and goes on to suggest that it was an example of public health experts trying to protect the supply of masks to healthcare. According to Willer, this noble white lie led to many people feeling “resentful” at having been misinformed and it fuelled their reluctance to adhere to subsequent mask requirements. Totally ignored is that most of the more robust, real-world evidence concludes that masking healthy people achieves no meaningful reduction in viral transmission, and the U-turn in mid-2020 towards mask mandates was not the result of new research findings but was – more likely – politically motivated.
Similarly, the raft of unprecedented Covid restrictions (lockdowns, shutting businesses, school closures) inflicted on Western citizens by the public health establishment are all assumed to achieve important benefits so that the only challenge for the pandemic experts is how to persuade the pesky people to comply with them. Consequently, the article cites the ideas of a number of social scientists regarding how to effectively lever compliance with future public health diktats. Varun Gauri, a senior economist, highlights the importance of making it easier for people to ‘do the right things’. Matthew Goldberg, a research psychiatrist, wants the psychological persuasion techniques of behavioural science to be used pre-emptively “so that when the time arises, people can act quickly”, a view echoed by infection-control researcher Armand Balboni. Katy Milkman, a behavioural scientist, promotes her strategies to enhance the take-up of Covid vaccines, including a “regret lottery” where people are informed that their names have been entered into a draw to win a lot of money, but that the “winner” will lose the prize if not vaccinated.
Despite the wealth of accumulated evidence that lockdowns are ineffectual in reducing Covid-related hospitalisations and cause huge collateral damage, alongside the emerging realisation that Covid vaccines may achieve no overall net benefits and can do considerable harm, nowhere in the article is there even a hint of recognition that the restrict-and-jab doctrine of mainstream public health failed to achieve many of its stated aims.
One important negative consequence of the flawed ‘science is settled’ assumption, as displayed by the author and her expert contributors, is that it justifies the censoring and vilification of anyone challenging the dominant narrative. For example, Varun Gauri says, “During the COVID-19 pandemic, disinformation played a major part in sowing division and undermining the authority of health officials” and that this “paved the way for fast viral spread and low vaccination rates”. His solution is for authorities to “take a bigger, legislative approach to the problem” – a euphemism for censorship. Similarly, Katy Milkman warns against allowing “conspiracy theories to slither in”.
The controversy surrounding the acceptability of state-imposed ‘nudging’
It seems that all those involved in the Nature article are blissfully unaware of the controversy surrounding the state’s use of covert psychological strategies (or ‘nudges’) to promote compliance with Government restrictions. Blinded by their fixed belief that the Covid science is settled, and focused only on the goal of persuading the populace to ‘do the right things’, the social scientists cited in the commentary blithely propose a range of behavioural science interventions without any questioning around the appropriateness and ethical acceptability of these clandestine methods.
Nudges are psychological strategies of persuasion that largely impact upon their targets below the level of conscious awareness – that is, people do not know they are being influenced. Such techniques have been heavily deployed throughout the Covid era, and have evoked a range of ethical concerns relating to the acceptability of the state strategically (and non-consensually) increasing the emotional discomfort of its citizens as a means of promoting compliance with unprecedented and largely non-evidenced public health restrictions. Also, as the strategies operate subconsciously, they could often be categorised as manipulative.
The expert contributors referenced in the Nature article repeatedly commend greater deployment of these ethically dubious techniques in future pandemics. For instance, Balboni urges political leaders to ensure human behaviour specialists play a much bigger part in health policy, bemoaning that, during the Covid era, “social scientists, anthropologists and psychologists were not used nearly enough”. Later in the article, the purported benefits of the “pre-emptive deployment of behavioural science” is highlighted.
More specifically, the value of equating virtue with compliance with the restrictions is lauded. This particular strategy – an ‘ego’ nudge in behavioural science parlance – was used repeatedly throughout the Covid event, effectively evoking shame in anyone who deviated from the demands of public health diktats and the vaccination doctrine. Many will recall the repeated ‘I wear a face covering to protect my mates’ adverts, the ‘don’t kill your gran’ quips by ministers, and the close-up images of acutely unwell hospital patients with the voiceover, “Can you look them in the eyes and tell them you’re doing all you can to stop the spread of coronavirus?” Of the same ilk was the NHS document (later redacted) advising front-line staff to tell young people that, “Normality can only return, for you and others, with your vaccination” (my emphasis).
The Nature article endorses the same tactic of differentiating the goodies from the baddies. It is stated that, “Encouraging feelings of empathy in people could make them more likely to choose to protect others during a pandemic”. There are also references to the desirability of “invoking of empathy” and emphasising “the vaccines’ collective benefits, such as protecting others”. In the words of Balboni, it is really important to get people to recognise that “through their behaviour, they can actually protect other people”. Clearly, the considerable evidence demonstrating that Covid vaccinations do not prevent viral transmission has yet to reach these nudge enthusiasts.
In a Western supposedly liberal democracy, is it ethical for the state to strategically inflict shame on its citizens? Does the informed consent of the people, as to whether to accept a medical or psychological intervention, no longer matter? Is it acceptable to covertly influence the general population to follow contentious and largely non-evidenced Covid restrictions? Shamefully – pun intended – these key ethical considerations are totally disregarded in this Nature journal commentary.
The role of political ideology and conflict of interests
What might account for the publication of such a partisan article in an academic journal?
Many critics of Covid orthodoxy have raised the spectre of an underlying globalist agenda, removed from any democratic process, shaping Western responses to pandemic management. With the central involvement of the World Economic Forum (WEF), it has been argued that the crisis following the emergence of a novel respiratory virus has been opportunistically exploited in pursuit of wider, pre-existing goals pertaining to tackling climate change and the imposition of Covid Passes and Digital ID, Social Credit Systems, Central Bank Digital Currency and Universal Basic Income (as detailed in Agenda 2030). The authoritarian control over the world’s population (essential to realise such an agenda) is typically legitimised under the banners of ‘the greater good’ and ‘social responsibility’, two themes that run through the Nature article. Is it possible that the author and contributors adhere to this globalist ideology?
Exploration of the ongoing interests of those involved in the compilation of the article is revealing:
- Elizabeth Svoboda is a regular contributor to Greater Good online magazine.
- Varun Gauri is a member of the WEF and an economist at the Development Research Group of the World Bank.
- Rob Fuller is “Director of Polarisation and Social Change Lab” at Stanford University; he recently co-wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times titled, “How to convince Republicans to get vaccinated”.
- Matthew Goldberg is a research scientist at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
- Katherine Milkman is Deputy Director at the “Behaviour Change for Good Initiative“, an enterprise that claims it uses behavioural science to “transform people’s lives for the better”.
Would it be too speculative to suggest that those involved in the Nature article harbour a penchant for a new world order, and that these globalist proclivities may have compromised their objectivity?
Finally, my eye was drawn to a footnote to the article that read: “This article is part of Nature Outlook: Pandemic preparedness, an editorially independent supplement produced with the financial support of third parties.” And who funds this supplement? Astra Zeneca and Moderna.
I rest my case.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign. He blogs at Coronababble.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Covid was an extremely deadly virus that killed millions around the world. Lockdowns, tests, masks and miracle vaccines defeated the pandemic and saved hundreds of millions of lives.
A dozen Saudi Arabian jihadis hijacked four planes, crashed two of them into the NY World Trade Centre towers causing them to collapse and one crashed into the Pentagon. The whole thing was planned and orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan.
John Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting completely alone for reasons that we will never know.
Set the narrative from the beginning, push it hard so that it becomes the default explanation and call anyone who asks questions a crazy conspiracy theorist.
They managed to collapse 3 towers with 2 planes!
I am with you regarding Covid and JFK but would like to know more about the 9/11 “conspiracy”. Are you saying that “the Deep State” in the USA was behind 9/11? It is one thing to assassinate a single individual, but to kill over 3,000 (and it could have been many more) of your country’s citizens in order to advance an agenda feels like a step too far for me. But I am open to persuasion…
Your reply is interesting because it is quite revealing of the way these highly contentious issues are approached.
I don’t have a theory about 9/11, conspiratorial or otherwise. What I have are questions or doubts that lead me to suspect that the story we’ve been given is not correct.
I’m not persuaded that those towers would fall the way they did because of 2 planes. And plenty of architects and engineers I speak to have similar doubts. I don’t understand why there isn’t proper footage of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, a place that is rigged all over with cameras. They tell us that the plane crashed into the Pentagon at 500 mph. That is one hell of a stunt as confirmed to me by several pilots. The collapse of WTC7 and its announcement on TV before it has actually happened is highly suspicious to say the least. And more. I don’t believe the story. Too many holes.
But, that’s as far as I can go, because I have no clue what really happened nor should I really.
Just because I can see that a story is almost certainly BS doesn’t mean I have to know what happened. And of course, the moment you start trying to put together an alternative theory with no actual facts at your disposal, it’s very difficult to avoid sounding a bit nutty.
The only defendable position I can see with 9/11 is that the official story is BS and that lord only knows what actually happened. Same with JFK.
And with COVID, sort of the same. We know it wasn’t as dangerous as they said and we know that lockdowns, masks, tests and jabs didn’t save us from anything. And I can say that with confidence without having to get into whether it was all cock up or conspiracy.
Buildings just don’t fall like that. The only way they fall like that is from controlled demolition. Just like WTC7, which was never even hit by a plane and which we are told collapsed into its footprint owing to fire (unlike WTC1 and WTC2).
Sorry this was meant to be a reply to MichaelM
I don’t know how buildings fall, but why would the insiders (the deep state, say) be concerned with ensuring the buildings collapsed tidily? And why would they even be involving WTC7? Surely their narrative (to justify going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, say) was amply met by the mere fact of passenger jets being hijacked by Islamist terrorists and flown into these iconic buildings, killing many US and other citizens?
It had to to be an act so horrific, striking at the very heart of the USA – the Pentagon, the World Trade Centre in New York – that the call to war would be heralded as the only response. I can imagine that the planners, if indeed it was an inside job, were not not just going to sacrifice huge parts of Manhattan to do this but had some sort of restraint in place to ensure that it looked like the buildings fell as a result of the planes. I don’t know, I can only guess.
Thank you for your reply, which is helpful and essentially mirrors my position. I do have many questions re 9/11, along the lines you have described. I am not sure the lack of video footage of the Pentagon crash is that surprising, given the totally unforeseeable (I think) angle of attack – ie 30-45 degrees coming out of the sky. The point with 9/11 is that there are only two possibilities re what happened (terrorist attack or inside job by the deep state) and the question for me is which is the more likely explanation, given all we know.
As an aside, I am not clear why a position of ignorance and inquiry is worthy of a number of downticks. Anyone?
An “inside job” could mean a lot of different things. Could be quite large scale, could be small scale, in terms of the number of people involved.
If we are to believe that Osama Bin Laden was able to get together a small band of jihadis and the necessary financing without anyone finding out about it, why is it so hard to believe that an equally small side of insiders might not be able to do the same, or something similar?
History is littered with actual real conspiracies. The Reichstag fire, for example, was one such conspiracy, we are told. Sticking with the Nazis, all the while Jews were being exterminated rumours of the atrocity was getting out and being disbelieved right up to the point it became the interest of someone more powerful to expose it.
What is so unique about Germans in the 1930s and 40s that makes it possible for them to split away jews from society then conspire to exterminate 6 million of them apparently behind the back of the entire German population and the world population, but so completely unlikely that say a few American “insiders” manage to pull of a stunt like 9/11?
People plot things all the time. And it would be safe to assume that the bigger the stakes the more likely someone is plotting something and the bigger the plot.
Though it was not foreseen, I think it is relatively easy to believe that a bunch of terrorists could synchronise their hijacking of four passenger jets and fly them into buildings. Not sure if Bin Laden was closely involved, but there isn’t a big financial requirement (flight tickets for 4 guys plus flying lessons plus travel, food and accommodation) and not sure why we would expect to find out about it in advance. So, for me, that part is highly believable.
The questions arise about how the buildings collapsed in on themselves and why it was known in advance that building WTC7 would collapse, despite only being on fire. But why would WTC7 have to collapse if it was an inside job? How does that advance the narrative? And why would the insiders be concerned with how the Twin Towers collapsed? – surely, their objective would be met by simply having those iconic buildings destroyed and with fewer deaths?.
I remain undecided as to whether 9/11 was an inside job or the result of Islamist terrorism.
You get downticks for saying ‘Good Morning’ on here, Michael!
Good evening Aethelred.
Sorry, HP, only just saw your greeting! It’s morning now so over to the News Update…see you there!
Thanks for the heads-up, Aethelred
I guess the Pentagon’s cameras, like every other building in the world, pointed from on high down to the ground as that’s where the problems were expected to be? As for planes & skyscrapers I don’t think anyone has run the experiment of running a 181,00 Kg aircraft with 90,000 Kg of Jet1 aviation fuel into a building at 450 knots to try and disprove the hoax theory??
Why are you happy to believe they’re capable of killing hundreds of thousands with “vaccines” but incapable of killing a few thousand in a false flag terrorist incident?
Anyway, here are just 2 of the things that disprove the official narrative:
1) Lots of firemen reported hearing/experiencing/ observing the effects of explosions in the basements and lower floors;
2) Initial photographs of the Pentagon show one small hole, hardly any debris and no bodies or luggage.The claimed pilot was agreed by those who had been training him to be utterly incapable of carrying out the difficult manoeuvre which preceded the “impact”. A manoeuvre that was not necessary if the intention was just to hit the Pentagon rather than a specific section of it.
Of course he’s not saying that you conspiracy theorist!
This video explains it all perfectly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpzIVwoeAlc
Thanks for posting that YT link, which I watched with interest, though it had lost quite a lot of credibility within the space of its first (admittedly long) sentence. Which I have taken the trouble to quote verbatim below.
“On the morning of Sept 11 2001 19 men, armed with box-cutters, directed by a man on dialysis in a cave system halfway around the world, using a satellite phone and a laptop, directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military-combat trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.”
I’m sure I don’t need to spell out all the points that detract credibility from this version of events, but as examples:
I do continue to have major doubts about the official narrative around 9/11 – but I also have major doubts about the alternative version.
Firstly, thank you for your comprehensive response. I will direct you to The Corbett Report website which contains the full transcript and links to the sources for the claims made. The purpose of the video in my opinion is to accumulate all the claims made by mainstream news and the 9/11 commission report to demonstrate the volume of inconsistencies made concerning the events of 9/11.
https://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/
I would also recommend taking the time to watch James Corbett’s documentary, The Secret History of Al Qaida which provides an extremely in depth, sourced account of the Al Qaida myth.
https://www.corbettreport.com/alqaeda/
I have read your observations to responses on this post with interest. Yes, I agree we should remain sceptical of all sources of information and ask rigorous questions. However, I would also posit that in order for an official narrative to be proven untrue it is not a prerequisite to have to provide a full alternative account. For example you stated in an earlier post you believe the official version of the JFK assassination was not true, but I’m sure you agree it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to provide a full and accurate account of what actually happened that day in Dealey Plaza.
I believe that there are enough unanswered questions about 9/11 to conclude that the official narrative is a lie. If it is a lie, why would any government (let alone all western governments) want to cover up something so serious. And inevitably one must ask; cui bono?
I think your questions expect too much. For example, earlier you asked, why would ‘they’ aim to make the towers come down so symmetrically? There are many answers one could speculate on this, but no answer would satisfactorily explain the anomaly unless you had a full account of the reality and reasoning. The question effectively amounts to the belief that it can’t be an ‘inside job’ because the planners would have made it look a bit more unsymmetrical. Your supposition appears to imply that it looks too much like a controlled demolition so it could not possibly be a controlled demolition because they would have planned it not to look like a controlled demolition. This is the thinking of a ‘coincidence theorist’.
Furthermore, you state there was no penetration of airspace because they were domestic flights. That is a semantic argument. I think any airplane flying into heavily restricted airspace (i.e. flying into the Pentagon) could be reasonably regarded as penetrating the most heavily restricted air space in the world. You have placed the additional criteria that the flights must not be domestic to regard them accessing this airspace as a penetration.
You also inserted the phrase ‘real time’. That does not appear in the transcript link I have supplied here or indeed the video.
You have accounted for 2 planes, not four.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt, but I would offer the friendly criticism that if you are going to query the ‘conspiracy theory’, you do so with a little more rigour than displayed here.
There is no holistic ‘alternate theory’. At least I have never seen one. There are many questions concerning the official narrative, which was not foisted upon the government by the general public, but the other way around. If one sets forth a case you must be able to answer legitimate queries and provide answers to the contradictions should they become apparent, not belittle the questioner because they dared question the narrative. I’m not saying that’s what you are doing, but it is certainly what the governments and the media gatekeepers have been doing since 9/11. Again, you have to ask; why?
Thanks DKPP for your reply to my comment – and thank you for the links provided.
My reply to your earlier post was not, and wasn’t intended to be, comprehensive (as you suggest), so I do feel it is a bit unwarranted of you to assert that I should not feel free to raise questions about a “conspiracy theory” unless I do so “with a little more rigour”. Ironically, my whole point was that the commentary in the video you posted was not sufficiently rigorous in its first sentence, thereby damaging its own credibility. And FWIW I don’t think your rebuttals to the points I raised are valid in themselves: the words “on the morning [of 9/11] (Bin Laden} directed the most sophisticated penetration…” does imply real-time direction; the passenger jets didn’t penetrate the most heavily defended airspace in the world; and they weren’t flying for more than an hour. The video is clearly trying to suggest the viewer must be stupid if he/she believes a hijacked passenger plane could conceivably fly unmolested for 27 minutes after the hijacking became known to ground personnel. Mmmm…
Could I ask a very basic question? Do you believe two passenger airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001?
And, finally, please accept my assurances that I am not seeking to belittle anyone questioning a mainstream narrative. I am very much a MSM narrative sceptic myself on many issues, including covid, climate change, woke nonsense, Trump and the 2020 Election and January 6 “insurrection” etc – and I am very much on-the-fence regarding 9/11.
Hi M. Thanks for the response. I thought you did provide a comprehensive response. I’m sorry this was not correct.
I have not, did not and would not assert that you “should not feel free to raise questions about a “conspiracy theory” unless [you] do so “with a little more rigour””. You appear to be taking my comment out of context. Please read the actual words I wrote in context.
The video in question was I think intended to be a whimsical take on the many years of ‘facts’ pushed by the media concerning 9/11, not an alternative narrative as you assert. The purpose of the video, in my view, is to point out the absurdity of the official version of events pushed by the media.
Your assertions regarding James Corbett’s intentions do not chime with my experience. Mr Corbett goes to great lengths to source all his material and goes to some pains to ensure that he treats his subject matter and audience with respect. Unlike mainstream media Mr Corbett provides links to all his source material and encourages his audience to “do their own research” in virtually all his output.
I am afraid we must disagree in relation to the first sentence of the video. I do not agree that it is implied that the attacks were directed in “real time”. If that assertion were made by the mainstream media then I assert it would probably have been included within the video and a source would have been supplied. However, no such claim has ever been made, as far as I’m aware. I do not believe that Mr Corbett was trying to make any such case. I have watched The Corbett Report for many years and I have never heard him make any such assertion in his voluminous body of work. You may have implied it, but it is not implied by the work itself. Other people cannot be held responsible for what you read into a text.
One of the aeroplanes used to undertake the attacks did indeed penetrate controlled airspace. In that it flew into the Pentagon in Washington, which, like it or not, is heavily controlled airspace. But as I said earlier this is a semantic argument. It could also be argued that the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Centre towers were also in heavily controlled airspace, as planes did not usually fly over Manhattan in the way that these did. I see very little point in us continuing to debate this, as clearly the matter comes down to personal definition of terms.
Flight AA77 took off from Dulles airport at 08:20 and crashed into the Pentagon at 09:37:46. The plane was flying for more than one hour. It flew wildly off course and when it crashed into the Pentagon. In doing so it had penetrated the most heavily defended airspace in the world.
United Airlines Flight 93 took off at 08:42 and crashed at 10:03:10. Again, it was flying for more than an hour and was wildly off course. Admittedly it did not “penetrate the most heavily defended airspace in the world”. Although arguably at the time that multiple airliners had been hijacked and crashed into high profile targets the whole of the US would have been “the most heavily defended airspace in the world”.
I think the video suggests that the official narrative is stupid and I tend to agree. However, my opinion on the matter is entirely irrelevant. Only the facts and the evidence are important.
Whether I answer your question or not is immaterial to the facts. I think the motivation behind your ‘basic’ question is to attempt to cast a shadow of doubt. Perhaps I am incorrect, but I cannot see the relevance of your tangential enquiry based upon my previous two posts.
I am happy to respond on any matter where there is some veracity to continuing the debate. I sense this is petering out into the same well trodden furrow of logical fallacies that usually materialise surrounding this topic. Forgive me then if I do not respond further.
Hi DKPP – yes, I agree – we have discussed this enough. I was coming from a position of ignorance regarding “the 9/11 conspiracy theory”, though I had heard about it and had done some very limited research into it (such as in connection with the collapse of WTC7). I haven’t previously heard of James Corbett and will definitely look at some of his material on the topic.
My question about the two passenger jets crashing (or not) into the Twin Towers was sincere – with video simulation and some control over footage shown on the media and being pre widespread mobile phone ownership, it is not IMO a ridiculous question to ask.
But anyway – thanks for taking the time…
We are led to believe that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon just vaporised. How was this not front page news? No plane wreckage, no engines, no passenger’s effects, just a gaping hole in the side of the Pentagon plus one security camera actually captured something flashing by before impact. It wasn’t a plane. A plane does not just vaporise. Not like that. A plane has never vaporised before so why are we led to believe that it could happen? Also, it has been shown that to actually fly a plane into the side of the Pentagon would have been a technically almost impossible feat and certainly not one that a few terrorists could have done after a limited number of flying lessons. This is a massive, unwieldy plane not a Cessna!
Then, Building 7…it fell in free fall on its own footprint apparently from burning debris. Buildings don’t just fall down like that. How are we meant to believe that? Once you start piecing together the different things that don’t make sense, you start questioning the mainstream narrative. But, of course, we are not allowed to because that would be to dishonour the memories of those that died. See the manipulation now? At least to ask questions about these things and to have a proper inquiry but to be silenced with the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ is so easy and so convenient. Now everyone buys the same story and yet the questions remain unanswered.
The Long March Through the Institutions? We’re in a cycle where the prevailing political philosophy among the “elite” is collectivist/authoritarian?
Never interrupt fools.
Do the sort of people exemplified by the authors of this Nature article not understand that they’ve been rumbled? That enough people have woken up to their evil to ensure that they have a real battle on their hands?
I suspect not, and that they are blissfully sailing along thinking it’s still late 2020, when they had more-or-less an open goal in front of them. Things are different now.
They don’t care because their hands are on the levers of power, not yours. The only time they care about your opinion is when you have something they want. Increasingly as their wealth and power grows, you become obsolete.
“their hands are on the levers of power”
Sadly true, seemingly almost everywhere, judging by covid evil.
Whilst folk are waking up, they are doing so very slowly & too many folk are blissfully unaware of the malevolence of government & take all of the Agenda 21/30 crap at face value, seeing only the purportedly positive spin.
That so many folk have woken up is why the WEF agenda is being speeded up as it needs to be in place before too many more of us become aware of the reality of the agenda.
A good job, well done, in exploring the financial interests of the author and the journal. Hopefully the normal readers of that one are intelligent enough to realise that quite a lot of the authors are likely to have “interests”, which they might not declare, especially if they appear to be “experts” on the topic.
Perhaps the next edition will contain a barrage of argument and rejection of the thesis of these sinister individuals.
I certainly hope so.
Sadly, most medical journals have also decided that their role is now to push an agenda rather than explore medical science.
They quality of most medical journals is now tripe, and the “conflict of interest” declarations are a who’s who of WEF and Big Pharma royalty.
Why? Because they are bought and paid for pharma ho’s.
The bigger question is why to this day public health authorities and health care professionals are still pushing the poison, still saying it is safe. Basal University has just concluded a study showing that the vaxx causes far higher incidences of myocarditis than expected. But it doesn’t know what causes it – the immune response, the mrna itself, the spike protein – they suggest further research. And right after saying they found a surprisingly higher degree of harm and having no idea what causes it, go on to say that the vaxx has saved millions of lives and people should keep taking it.
Incredible, 2 years of pumping this garbage into people and they still don’t know how much damage it causes or why – yet the blatant propaganda and lies continue.
At some point people are going to ‘nudge’ back, except the ‘nudging’ by people who suffered and lost loved ones will not be so subtle or underhanded.
To find early origins of the globalist plan one only need look back at Cecil Rhodes evolving last will and testament, H.G.Wells works The Open Conspiracy and The New World Order, Carroll Quigley’s tome Tragedy and Hope and the more manageable The Anglo American Establishment, as well as the works which have come out of of The Royal Society and its Atlantic counterpart The Council on Foreign Relations.
All these documents clearly set out a plan to for a global government by the people who, through their belief they belong to a superior race of leaders because of their blind belief in Malthusian eugenics (renamed due to Hitler muddying their waters as ’social science’ and ‘bio-ethics’). It is not, as some argue, a call for world socialism. Wells himself a massive socialist (he praised Uncle Joe Stalin, for the ‘good’ he was doing in the USSR) recognised the shortcomings of socialism and predicted such movements would be caught up in the inevitable wave of The Open Conspiracy. He also highly praised the use of propaganda.
That was about the only praying he and his fellow conspirators did. Because another massive factor in their march toward their New World Order is the rejection of God. Replacing the spiritual void left by denying God with the idolatry of science. Now known as ‘The Science’™.
An absolutely shocking but unsurprising article from a once respected news magazine now over 150 years old.
Sadly the New Scientist and Scientific American are similarly corrupted.
Their articles are increasingly written by young journalists who only bother to just google stuff after being spoon fed the usual propaganda from the BBC et al.
I doubt that any of them have ever actually read books about vaccinology, genetic engineering not to mention the effects of said disciplines on the immune system –
Janeway, Medzhitov, Burnett, Allison – who the hell are they.
All hail the miracle new vaccines and control measures.
It just warns us how far we have yet to go before the bastards in charge are defeated.
.
We are many; they are few. They’re terrified of us……and with good reason.
I do pray you are right RTSC
because their powers terrify me, my anxiety reading this. The future of generations when we are gone who will rewrite theses revisionists untruths.
For example at school I had to prompt some understanding of Armistice Day before the two minutes of silence because they don’t know why? But we have had plenty of teaching on black history month. Which is fine but it is heavily weighted to one narrative as it is in Nature just one way.
Oh my goodness what an amazing read, thank you Dr Sidley. Your “I rest my case” is quite so! The evidence of the opportunist world population control is getting clearer all the time . They are still pushing this as you say “the virtue of equating value with virtue with compliance with the restrictions is lauded”. Scary indeed.
Not a conspiracy after all then, daily sceptic, welcome to the One World Order. Did you see a British PM and Macron run into each other’s arms, then Trudeau tuned up it was a WEF ‘love in’. Don’t look now.
Gary you are really exposing the dark side of these behaviourist manipulator’s. Let’s call them that they are engaging in crude Skinnerism, operant conditioning through fear. They are scum and they need to be exposed. We should set up an academy of ethical behavioural researchers to take these people on. As you say despite Behavioural Science’s declared intent at “benevolent paternalism”, what is being advocated by the manipulators is nothing short of dread based authoritarianism. Clearly many like Michie and Reicher in the U.K. are fusing their Stalinist woke worldview with big Pharma and authoritarian governments. Lastly the working class in China are revolting against the zero covid madness.
I wonder if these behavioural science experts have a view of what happens when the lies and deception are subsequently revealed as such. What do they think will happen the next time the authorities “cry wolf”?
This has to be Behavioural Science 101 – Primary School edition.
Thank you Dr Sidley.
While there is much to appreciate in this article I am not clear where Dr Sidley stands regarding the “pandemic.”
There has been no pandemic by any stretch. Scamdemic undoubtedly.
“ensure that the populace do the right things when faced with the next global pandemic.”
“when the next novel respiratory virus emerges over the horizon.”
“in future pandemics”
The apparent acceptance of the greatest scam on humanity ever perpetrated needs clarifying. It is highly probable that the last real pandemic was The Black Death of the 17th century so the suggestion that another “pandemic” is going to follow this current scam is far fetched. Unless of course Dr Sidley is alluding to a VAIDS pandemic which may be on the way.
Sorry about the dark hi-lites,I inadvertently caught the ‘B,’ button and I don’t / can’t turn it off mid post.
Can anybody advise?
Unable to advise on dark highlights, but you are correct to say there was no pandemic, and correct to point out that we should strive at all times to avoid using the language of the enemy.
Thanks tof.👍
This feature was broken (at least for some browsers) in the most-recent design update. Somewhat simplified, style elements (like boldface or italics) stick to character cells of the input form. It”s possible to break out of a style by running away from it. Technically, this can be done by creating a few blank lines and then type stuff and delete it again until the highlighted element in the bottom row turns again off. One can then type some normal text and close the gap by deleting the blank lines.
This may sound weird but it’s the method I’ve been employing ever since the update which broke this feature.
Thanks RW. I will give that a try. I had thought those bottom buttons were crude, your explanation helps.
The problem is that people like me who research the real science and try to ignore the unnecessary restrictions find it difficult not to follow them once the stupid unscientific government leaders put them into law. The reason they can do that is we have a majority of stupid unscientific people in our mainstream media who support these actions without a moments investigation into whether they are justified. Why have we so few people prepared to fight for our individual human rights and why are there so many prepared to shut them dowm when they try? It seems now that because of our government’s disgraceful actions over Covid, politicians drunk on power, think they can destroy our freedoms whenever they feel like it without any proper investigation into the reasons, if there are any. The Tory and Labour party are both guilty in this and in fact Labour is worse because they were always crying out for more. Where is Guy Fawkes when we need him? We certainly need a clear out of all current politicians because none of them have fought hard enough to preserve the rights of our citizens to decide for themselve how they live their lives and none of the parties in parliament are interested about anything other than gaining or hanging on to power. Its time we the people told them where they get off.
It would be best to refer to ‘Behavioural Scientists’ as ‘Behavioural Quacks or Charlatans’ as they sure as hell aren’t Scientists
“undermining the authority of health officials”, an authority that has to be imposed rather than earned?? That’s the problem, as soon as you have to ‘force’ their authority, it’s blatantly obvious that they don’t have it. We are not stupid, they only think we are.