Shouldn't MIT be the country's leading defender of science? Today, MIT isn't asking any tough questions about the COVID vaccines and refuses to let people with dissenting views talk on campus.
"We live in a technological dark age," — when casually said by MIT Math Professor Gian-Carlo Rota during dinner in the 1970's left a deep impression on me. Unfortunately this quip metastized into today's intersection of 1984, Brave New World & Fahrenheit 451: #Faucism.
I have watched with discomfort as the Institute migrated into the politically correct,— disappointedly so with Dr Reif, who probably considers Maduro in Venezuela a dangerous idealogue, but issues statement after statement with political overtones seemingly oblivious to their one-sided narrative.
In any event, keep challenging the falsehoods and shibboleths with the methodology that MIT used to adhere to,— "quantify!"
Perhaps MIT has something to hide. Possibly MIT Corporation is embarrassed by its roles in CDC bio-research, and the project transferred to Wuhan. I recall reading in late 2019 or early 2020 in The Tech that a Harvard Prof was fired or dismissed; and lead researcher and project relocated to Wuhan. After MIT supported injections while faculty were releasing hundreds of preliminary findings on topics related to ‘the spread’ and mask efficacy, I asked my MIT Alum son ‘What’s with MIT?’. I thought it was a research institution that does real research. I was shocked by its position requiring all persons to be injected to be on campus. Then concluded MIT gets too much money from corrupt government and private corporate sources do is owned just like the rest of America. So much for the Independent stellar meritocracy MIT once was.
Universities once stood for the principle of open inquiry and rigorous debate. Of all debates, those that posed debates of diametric opposite were often the most interesting. In our time, thanks to the focused subversion of American academia that has been on-going since the 1930's, the "diametric opposite" of what Universities stood for, and what a university education once could be said about a student's completion of its former rigorous fields of inquiry, said about the graduate.
Now, our universities, even the so-called cream of the Ivy League, think nothing of censoring opposing points of view, based on whatever is socially and politically "popular" at a given moment, to churn out lemmings who know nothing of History, Geography, Geo-Politics and the Constitution of the United States.
As Luddite lemming factories pushing various versions of socialism and communism, our once elite Ivy League universities -- as well as those "lesser" universities that stand in their shadows -- have no peer in History. Their graduates now move and think in lockstep, and n infest the major corporations and corporate boards of America.
How else to explain the genuflection and corporate "acceptance" of a declared Marxist-Communist movement (BLM) whose main stated central goal was the overthrow and destruction of the American Family? (If you beg to differ with me, then please "Mr. Corporate Head of Chick Fillet" who shall remain nameless to protect his lick-spittle subservience to an obvious fraud, even going so far as to shine the shoes of anonymous Blacks in supplication for all that THEIR ANCESTORS endured at the hands of HIS ANCESTORS!).
This corporate acceptance of corruption continued and today continues thru the huge majority of our electronic and social media. How else to explain the complete censorship and abdication of all central tenets of honest journalism to allow the story of Hunter Biden's laptop "revelations" just two weeks before the election to be "disappeared" from the pages of search engines, to ban the NY Post on Twitter, to be ridiculed by nearly 100% of the major newspapers and electronic media, and to have story all but banned on social media, save to mock and ridicule the extremely solid evidence that the THREE Hunter Biden laptops were real. Yesterday, we received, a "minor" correction by the scabrous "Grey Lady" of Communist propaganda, The New York Times, admitting that "it appears" from all available evidence that all the contents on Hunter Biden's laptop is genuine and real." Paaaardon Our Error...
Easy to say, when well over ten percent of actual voters, interviewed AFTER the installation of The Joe Biden Regime, said that they would have voted against Biden if they had known and suspected that the information on Hunter Biden's laptop were genuine. Think on that thought!
Just this ONE piece of censored information could have easily changed the declared "outcome" of our last "election."
Of course, the NYT and other publications in similar democrat controlled sewer-cities will claim that they just were repeating the learned penetrating analysis by 50 members of "our" "intelligence" community who declared -- without a stated shred of evidence to justify their opinion -- that Hunter Biden's laptop appeared to have all the earmarks of "classic" Russian disinformation.
These "classic" earmarks were never once openly discussed so that we -- the citizens of the United States -- could judge for ourselves whether such earmarks even existed!
I use these illustrations to buttress my original argument: the negative consequences of censorship upon our country and its citizens are clear. Worse, the future negative consequences of such censorship are often unpredictable and cannot be forecast.
And in this rank example: MIT -- of all schools, is suffering the same stultifying sabotage of free intellectual inquiry to hold opposing view or even multiple differing views (OMG--shades of REAL "Diversity") by acting as an agent of the termination of free intellectual inquiry, the actual foundational KEYSTONE of a university education -- and prefer to follow in socio/political lockstep to keep those corporate and government contracts flowing, rather than dare to present points of view to challenge and question doctrinaire "Woke" dogma.
Your decision to amputate the freedom of the human spirit by forbidding free intellectual inquiry, which real universities once sheltered and encouraged, is a stain on your soul and a blot on in the annals of human intellectual inquiry the Spirit of Enlightenment, which can never be removed or redeemed.
Thank you for that. The worldwide conspiracy continues then, many are dead that have refused the globalist agenda. Very sorry to hear this. RIP Dr Noack, you are not forgotten.
"The answer to that question should be obvious. It is because he was silenced; they threatened his family..." What evidence do you have for this? You hurt your own credibility if you make an accusation like this without any evidence to back up it. I can think of many possible reasons Schirmacher could choose to remain silent.
Something needs to be done to free Dr. Schirmacher. I don't recall if it was him but I saw a Doctor in Germany (poss Austria) doing a podcast on a topic related to the (not a) vaccine and he was raided, shut down and likely taken away from his home....our world continues the spiral into chaos.....
As one trained in the life sciences, I am disheartened and appalled by the abdication of the search for truth to the diktates of the oligarchs and their spin blather. Real science at this point in time has never been more important. "Their" plans must never get a chance to fail as they most certainly will if our species makes it through the new slime layers of rot and corruption! Climbing out may have been easier in the Cambrian but out of respect and appreciation of those early efforts we must keep the truth flowing between us and for us: We the People."
I reached out to a friend who also graduated from MIT to see if he had any professors that would sponsor this. He said MIT has definitely changed, and not for the better. Sounds like the only science they want to discuss is "political science"...and only their views.
Sorry Steve it seems that your 2.5 millions has no weight against what they receive from NIH? All those respected institutions and medical journals loosing weight in what they used to represent: sciences
Now they represent money like whores. I’m sure it’s not all of them, just the ones at the top who received bribes.
STEVE: What about debating a radio personality on his show? We have a local talk show guy who is an MD. He is generally against mandates, but has expressed belief in vxx safety/efficacy on his show. And he takes masks seriously! (It grates on me to no end.) I think he would do a debate. If you are interested, I will call in and challenge him. What do you think? I would love to hear this. And you would have people all over the area cheering you on.
He, Jikky Kjj and a number of other really smart Covid vax sleuths on Twitter are looking see if they can test some boosted sperm tested for CDKN1B to find out if this may cause unfortunate mutations.
One of the oddest aspects of this pandemic is that scientists seem to have forgotten the idea that the minority views need to be heard as well as the majority.
The general public knows about Galileo and knows sometimes the minority view turns out to be the correct one. But the public seems to have forgotten that this principle still can apply now. So the public seems to have gotten the idea that since the majority of scientists have one view on the pandemic, that means that the majority view MUST be right.
OK, so the general public has this mindset. But what’s truly astonishing is most scientists think this also! It’s absolutely unfathomable that most scientists actually do seem to be carrying the mindset that the majority view on the pandemic MUST be correct! I absolutely can not understand it.
Even for scientists in other fields, they well understand that there are debates and disagreements in their fields and just because most scientists subscribe to one view that’s no guarantee that’s actually the correct one. But quite astonishingly they don’t seem to get the same could be true in regards to this pandemic. And not only do they accept the idea the majority MUST be correct on the pandemic, they even support the idea of preventing debate on the pandemic, and support the idea alternative views SHOULD be suppressed!
So the question is WHY? I don’t know. It’s so utterly unfathomable. I wouldn’t even rule out Malone’s mass psychosis idea, even though that still leaves the question of WHY this mass psychosis?
The video below might give an explanation. I like that the video includes this great concept: “Groupthink: a drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent and appraisal of alternatives.”
The Emperor's New Clothes and Independent Thought.
Would you speak up if you saw something completely ridiculous? Or would you keep your doubts to yourself?
Democracies need their truth-tellers and free societies require independent thinkers able to question convention, resist conformity, and reach their own conclusions. This video explains why speech suppression can cause problems ranging from the laughable to the downright dangerous.
By the way the group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education that prepared the video promotes free speech on campuses. Still, I wonder how far they are dedicated to the idea of free speech. Would they endorse free discussion of alternative views on the pandemic?
A new research study sheds light on a behavior that is consistent among many species — that is, making decisions based upon the actions of others.
Scientists at the University of Leeds believe they may have found why humans flock like sheep and birds, subconsciously following a minority of individuals.
Researchers discovered that it takes a minority of just five percent to influence a crowd’s direction — and that the other 95 percent follow without realizing it.
The findings could have major implications for directing the flow of large crowds, such as sporting events or public rallies or gatherings. The results may also be particularly useful in disaster scenarios where verbal communication may be difficult.
“There are many situations where this information could be used to good effect,” says Professor Jens Krause of the University’s Faculty of Biological Sciences.
“At one extreme, it could be used to inform emergency planning strategies and at the other, it could be useful in organising pedestrian flow in busy areas.”
Professor Krause, with PhD student John Dyer, conducted a series of experiments where groups of people were asked to walk randomly around a large hall. Within the group, a select few received more detailed information about where to walk. Participants were not allowed to communicate with one another but had to stay within arms length of another person.
The findings show that in all cases, the ‘informed individuals’ were followed by others in the crowd, forming a self-organizing, snake-like structure.
“We’ve all been in situations where we get swept along by the crowd,” says Professor Krause. “But what’s interesting about this research is that our participants ended up making a consensus decision despite the fact that they weren’t allowed to talk or gesture to one another. In most cases the participants didn’t realize they were being led by others.”
Other experiments in the study used groups of different sizes, with different ratios of ‘informed individuals’. The research findings show that as the number of people in a crowd increases, the number of informed individuals decreases. In large crowds of 200 or more, five per cent of the group is enough to influence the direction in which it travels.
Thanks for the reference. I’ll definitely give that a read. Historians viewing this pandemic will have loads to study in regards to the psychology of the mindsets that prevailed where obvious concepts of science, such as free debate, were disregarded.
Steve,
"We live in a technological dark age," — when casually said by MIT Math Professor Gian-Carlo Rota during dinner in the 1970's left a deep impression on me. Unfortunately this quip metastized into today's intersection of 1984, Brave New World & Fahrenheit 451: #Faucism.
I have watched with discomfort as the Institute migrated into the politically correct,— disappointedly so with Dr Reif, who probably considers Maduro in Venezuela a dangerous idealogue, but issues statement after statement with political overtones seemingly oblivious to their one-sided narrative.
In any event, keep challenging the falsehoods and shibboleths with the methodology that MIT used to adhere to,— "quantify!"
Perhaps MIT has something to hide. Possibly MIT Corporation is embarrassed by its roles in CDC bio-research, and the project transferred to Wuhan. I recall reading in late 2019 or early 2020 in The Tech that a Harvard Prof was fired or dismissed; and lead researcher and project relocated to Wuhan. After MIT supported injections while faculty were releasing hundreds of preliminary findings on topics related to ‘the spread’ and mask efficacy, I asked my MIT Alum son ‘What’s with MIT?’. I thought it was a research institution that does real research. I was shocked by its position requiring all persons to be injected to be on campus. Then concluded MIT gets too much money from corrupt government and private corporate sources do is owned just like the rest of America. So much for the Independent stellar meritocracy MIT once was.
Universities once stood for the principle of open inquiry and rigorous debate. Of all debates, those that posed debates of diametric opposite were often the most interesting. In our time, thanks to the focused subversion of American academia that has been on-going since the 1930's, the "diametric opposite" of what Universities stood for, and what a university education once could be said about a student's completion of its former rigorous fields of inquiry, said about the graduate.
Now, our universities, even the so-called cream of the Ivy League, think nothing of censoring opposing points of view, based on whatever is socially and politically "popular" at a given moment, to churn out lemmings who know nothing of History, Geography, Geo-Politics and the Constitution of the United States.
As Luddite lemming factories pushing various versions of socialism and communism, our once elite Ivy League universities -- as well as those "lesser" universities that stand in their shadows -- have no peer in History. Their graduates now move and think in lockstep, and n infest the major corporations and corporate boards of America.
How else to explain the genuflection and corporate "acceptance" of a declared Marxist-Communist movement (BLM) whose main stated central goal was the overthrow and destruction of the American Family? (If you beg to differ with me, then please "Mr. Corporate Head of Chick Fillet" who shall remain nameless to protect his lick-spittle subservience to an obvious fraud, even going so far as to shine the shoes of anonymous Blacks in supplication for all that THEIR ANCESTORS endured at the hands of HIS ANCESTORS!).
This corporate acceptance of corruption continued and today continues thru the huge majority of our electronic and social media. How else to explain the complete censorship and abdication of all central tenets of honest journalism to allow the story of Hunter Biden's laptop "revelations" just two weeks before the election to be "disappeared" from the pages of search engines, to ban the NY Post on Twitter, to be ridiculed by nearly 100% of the major newspapers and electronic media, and to have story all but banned on social media, save to mock and ridicule the extremely solid evidence that the THREE Hunter Biden laptops were real. Yesterday, we received, a "minor" correction by the scabrous "Grey Lady" of Communist propaganda, The New York Times, admitting that "it appears" from all available evidence that all the contents on Hunter Biden's laptop is genuine and real." Paaaardon Our Error...
Easy to say, when well over ten percent of actual voters, interviewed AFTER the installation of The Joe Biden Regime, said that they would have voted against Biden if they had known and suspected that the information on Hunter Biden's laptop were genuine. Think on that thought!
Just this ONE piece of censored information could have easily changed the declared "outcome" of our last "election."
Of course, the NYT and other publications in similar democrat controlled sewer-cities will claim that they just were repeating the learned penetrating analysis by 50 members of "our" "intelligence" community who declared -- without a stated shred of evidence to justify their opinion -- that Hunter Biden's laptop appeared to have all the earmarks of "classic" Russian disinformation.
These "classic" earmarks were never once openly discussed so that we -- the citizens of the United States -- could judge for ourselves whether such earmarks even existed!
I use these illustrations to buttress my original argument: the negative consequences of censorship upon our country and its citizens are clear. Worse, the future negative consequences of such censorship are often unpredictable and cannot be forecast.
And in this rank example: MIT -- of all schools, is suffering the same stultifying sabotage of free intellectual inquiry to hold opposing view or even multiple differing views (OMG--shades of REAL "Diversity") by acting as an agent of the termination of free intellectual inquiry, the actual foundational KEYSTONE of a university education -- and prefer to follow in socio/political lockstep to keep those corporate and government contracts flowing, rather than dare to present points of view to challenge and question doctrinaire "Woke" dogma.
Your decision to amputate the freedom of the human spirit by forbidding free intellectual inquiry, which real universities once sheltered and encouraged, is a stain on your soul and a blot on in the annals of human intellectual inquiry the Spirit of Enlightenment, which can never be removed or redeemed.
Thank you for that. The worldwide conspiracy continues then, many are dead that have refused the globalist agenda. Very sorry to hear this. RIP Dr Noack, you are not forgotten.
"The answer to that question should be obvious. It is because he was silenced; they threatened his family..." What evidence do you have for this? You hurt your own credibility if you make an accusation like this without any evidence to back up it. I can think of many possible reasons Schirmacher could choose to remain silent.
Something needs to be done to free Dr. Schirmacher. I don't recall if it was him but I saw a Doctor in Germany (poss Austria) doing a podcast on a topic related to the (not a) vaccine and he was raided, shut down and likely taken away from his home....our world continues the spiral into chaos.....
The scientist you are referring to is the Austrian Dr. Andreas Noack, the European #1 specialist in graphene. He died shortly after giving a seminar about graphene in covid vaccines Here is what happened to him: https://www.unitednewschannel.org/post/dr-andreas-noack-whistleblower-found-dead
And here is how Dr. Noack died (interview with his girlfriend who lived with him and witnessed his last moments). https://bluecat.media/dr-andreas-noack-death-update-from-anna-cause-of-death-heart-attack-due-to-tricuspid-heart-valve-failure/
As one trained in the life sciences, I am disheartened and appalled by the abdication of the search for truth to the diktates of the oligarchs and their spin blather. Real science at this point in time has never been more important. "Their" plans must never get a chance to fail as they most certainly will if our species makes it through the new slime layers of rot and corruption! Climbing out may have been easier in the Cambrian but out of respect and appreciation of those early efforts we must keep the truth flowing between us and for us: We the People."
I reached out to a friend who also graduated from MIT to see if he had any professors that would sponsor this. He said MIT has definitely changed, and not for the better. Sounds like the only science they want to discuss is "political science"...and only their views.
That’s what we’re hearing out here in coastal CA from other MIT alum
Sorry Steve it seems that your 2.5 millions has no weight against what they receive from NIH? All those respected institutions and medical journals loosing weight in what they used to represent: sciences
Now they represent money like whores. I’m sure it’s not all of them, just the ones at the top who received bribes.
MIT updated COVID Policy & clarified it's Cambridge City indoor mask protocol.
https://thetech.com/2022/03/03/covid-policies-update-march
Unless it has been infiltrated by the WEF.
“Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.” ~ Albert Einstein
DO WE HAVE A DATE FOR THIS YET?
STEVE: What about debating a radio personality on his show? We have a local talk show guy who is an MD. He is generally against mandates, but has expressed belief in vxx safety/efficacy on his show. And he takes masks seriously! (It grates on me to no end.) I think he would do a debate. If you are interested, I will call in and challenge him. What do you think? I would love to hear this. And you would have people all over the area cheering you on.
Steve, you gotta check out Igor's latest Substack post: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/steve-kirsch-germ-line-mutation-allegations?s=r
He, Jikky Kjj and a number of other really smart Covid vax sleuths on Twitter are looking see if they can test some boosted sperm tested for CDKN1B to find out if this may cause unfortunate mutations.
One of the oddest aspects of this pandemic is that scientists seem to have forgotten the idea that the minority views need to be heard as well as the majority.
The general public knows about Galileo and knows sometimes the minority view turns out to be the correct one. But the public seems to have forgotten that this principle still can apply now. So the public seems to have gotten the idea that since the majority of scientists have one view on the pandemic, that means that the majority view MUST be right.
OK, so the general public has this mindset. But what’s truly astonishing is most scientists think this also! It’s absolutely unfathomable that most scientists actually do seem to be carrying the mindset that the majority view on the pandemic MUST be correct! I absolutely can not understand it.
Even for scientists in other fields, they well understand that there are debates and disagreements in their fields and just because most scientists subscribe to one view that’s no guarantee that’s actually the correct one. But quite astonishingly they don’t seem to get the same could be true in regards to this pandemic. And not only do they accept the idea the majority MUST be correct on the pandemic, they even support the idea of preventing debate on the pandemic, and support the idea alternative views SHOULD be suppressed!
So the question is WHY? I don’t know. It’s so utterly unfathomable. I wouldn’t even rule out Malone’s mass psychosis idea, even though that still leaves the question of WHY this mass psychosis?
The video below might give an explanation. I like that the video includes this great concept: “Groupthink: a drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent and appraisal of alternatives.”
The Emperor's New Clothes and Independent Thought.
youtube.com
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
20.6K subscribers
Would you speak up if you saw something completely ridiculous? Or would you keep your doubts to yourself?
Democracies need their truth-tellers and free societies require independent thinkers able to question convention, resist conformity, and reach their own conclusions. This video explains why speech suppression can cause problems ranging from the laughable to the downright dangerous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ym0u-KweN4
By the way the group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education that prepared the video promotes free speech on campuses. Still, I wonder how far they are dedicated to the idea of free speech. Would they endorse free discussion of alternative views on the pandemic?
Robert Clark
Herd Mentality Explained:
A new research study sheds light on a behavior that is consistent among many species — that is, making decisions based upon the actions of others.
Scientists at the University of Leeds believe they may have found why humans flock like sheep and birds, subconsciously following a minority of individuals.
Researchers discovered that it takes a minority of just five percent to influence a crowd’s direction — and that the other 95 percent follow without realizing it.
The findings could have major implications for directing the flow of large crowds, such as sporting events or public rallies or gatherings. The results may also be particularly useful in disaster scenarios where verbal communication may be difficult.
“There are many situations where this information could be used to good effect,” says Professor Jens Krause of the University’s Faculty of Biological Sciences.
“At one extreme, it could be used to inform emergency planning strategies and at the other, it could be useful in organising pedestrian flow in busy areas.”
Professor Krause, with PhD student John Dyer, conducted a series of experiments where groups of people were asked to walk randomly around a large hall. Within the group, a select few received more detailed information about where to walk. Participants were not allowed to communicate with one another but had to stay within arms length of another person.
The findings show that in all cases, the ‘informed individuals’ were followed by others in the crowd, forming a self-organizing, snake-like structure.
“We’ve all been in situations where we get swept along by the crowd,” says Professor Krause. “But what’s interesting about this research is that our participants ended up making a consensus decision despite the fact that they weren’t allowed to talk or gesture to one another. In most cases the participants didn’t realize they were being led by others.”
Other experiments in the study used groups of different sizes, with different ratios of ‘informed individuals’. The research findings show that as the number of people in a crowd increases, the number of informed individuals decreases. In large crowds of 200 or more, five per cent of the group is enough to influence the direction in which it travels.
Thanks for the reference. I’ll definitely give that a read. Historians viewing this pandemic will have loads to study in regards to the psychology of the mindsets that prevailed where obvious concepts of science, such as free debate, were disregarded.
Robert Clark