Peloni: As Project Stargate is in line to be the follow up to Project Warp Speed, closer attention should be paid to the unbridled assault on public health to bring Warp Speed online, and the reality is that all this assault began while manipulating scientific research to satisfy corporate profits rather than scientific inquiry. And while Warp Speed was catastrophic, it will be dwarfed by the much grander, more ambitious, better funded, and more far reaching followup program, Stargate. Bring scientific research back to support the principles of scientific inquiry and out of the pockets of corporate profiteers and stop this madness.
By Brownstone Institute | February 2, 2025
|Julie_Perkins_at_LLNL from en.wikipedia to Commons
In light of RFK, Jr.’s confirmation hearings to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, it is good to remember that much of what is presented to us as science stems from vested interests and an outdated mechanistic worldview.
Science is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. But it is not infallible — that’s why it is science and not dogma — and is sadly not immune to the virus of corruption. For many decades, the mirror of science has become increasingly blurred by a storm of vested interests, particularly when research and the communication of results are linked to large corporations.
The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal), one of the leading medical journals, published an article in 2022 on “The illusion of evidence-based medicine.” As stated in its introductory sentence, the solid scientific foundation claimed by medicine “has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialization of academia.” In this context, the authors assert that:
Unconcerned governments and captured regulators are unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue, advertising, and sponsorship revenue.
We were warned long ago. Back in 2005, the prestigious PLoS Medicine published one of the most quoted scientific articles of the 21st century, with the remarkable title “Why most published research findings are false.” Building on complex mathematical models, the renowned researcher John Ioannidis reached the conclusion that “most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields.”
The two top medical journals in the world are The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. Marcia Angell, the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the former, wrote in her 2009 article “Drug companies & doctors: A story of corruption:”
Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published […]. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
As for The Lancet, its director, Richard Horton, in 2015 devoted an article to a meeting with prominent scientists and government officials that he had attended the previous week at the Wellcome Trust. Observing Chatham House rules, they were asked not to take pictures or to disclose names. The article started by quoting one of the anonymous experts: “A lot of what is published is incorrect.”
Horton himself concluded: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” The Lancet’s editor-in-chief acknowledged that, in scientific articles of the most highly ranked journals, authors often “sculpt data to fit their preferred theory,” and he didn’t spare from his rebuke the editors (they prioritize impact over truth), nor the universities (they prioritize their need for funding), nor the best scientists (they don’t do much to change the situation). Horton summed up his confession (it sounds like one) by declaring that “science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
Worth underscoring: “Science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
In 2013, exactly a century after the Rockefeller Foundation had begun its program to recast medicine on a technocratic model, Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, was compelled to denounce the corruption of institutionalized medicine in a Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare.
There is no scarcity of books on the matter. In Empire of Pain (2021), Patrick Radden Keefe shows how the fortune of the Sackler family, estimated at $12 billion, grew from the massive and misleading promotion of the painkiller OxyContin, owned by Purdue Pharma. Commercials recommended it as a drug “to start and stay with,” triggering an epidemic of opioid addiction. According to Keefe, between 1999 and 2017, “200,000 Americans had died from overdoses related to OxyContin and other prescription opioids.”
For two thousand years, health care was led by the motto primum non nocere, “First do no harm.” During the 20th century, this sensible ideal was corrupted into primum lucrari, “First make profit.” Profit-making became the first priority of Big Pharma: what matters is the “health” of its profits, over and above the health of men, women, and children, over and above any scientific truth.
The fines that Big Pharma has to pay from time to time are more than offset by the profits it makes. Big Pharma is also the world’s leading spender in influencing the media and buying opinions. It lobbies health ministries and medical associations, captures regulators, and shapes all research to serve its interests — disregarding people’s health and disregarding evidence.
Richard Smith, former editor-in-chief of The BMJ, wrote in the summer of 2021 that “the system” directly encourages fraud in biomedical research:
Stephen Lock, my predecessor as editor of The BMJ, became worried about research fraud in the 1980s, but people thought his concerns eccentric. Research authorities insisted that fraud was rare, didn’t matter because science was self-correcting […]. All those reasons for not taking research fraud seriously have proved to be false, and, 40 years on from Lock’s concerns, we are realising that the problem is huge, the system encourages fraud, and we have no adequate way to respond. It may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary.
In this context, the “Follow the science” we were told since 2020 should have been taken with a pinch of salt. It was more about “Follow authority” or “Follow marketing.”
As the history of science shows again and again, what seems to be firmly established today, tomorrow may turn out to be incorrect, or only valid under certain circumstances. Lord Kelvin gave a famous lecture in 1900 in which he advised young talents not to study physics, because, by then, virtually everything had already been discovered. So it seemed. There remained only “two clouds;” that is, two minor questions about what light is. From one of those questions emerged quantum physics, and from the other one emerged the theory of relativity. The flow of understanding cannot be congealed: frozen science is no science.
In 2020, a barrage of misleading data broadcast, through mass media, from governments, international institutions, and medical journals, combined with the censorship of millions of us (including Nobel laureates Luc Montaigner and Michael Levitt and countless other experts) who didn’t toe the party line, coalesced to create the greatest scandal in the history of medicine.
Until then, most people would have considered the trial of Galileo by the Inquisition to be the greatest scandal in the history of science. But Galileo’s trial resulted in the lockdown of just one person, Galileo himself, who would spend his last years confined to his scenic villa in the countryside, il Gioiello (“the Jewel”), where he wrote some of his most important work, including his Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences. That is not comparable with the lockdown of billions of people, and the suffering and fatal or long-lasting adverse effects inflicted on many men, women and children, for reasons alien to science.
The recent bipartisan House of Representatives report on the “Coronavirus Pandemic,” published on December 4, 2024, includes headings showing that “The Six-Foot Social Distancing Requirement Was Not Supported by Science,” “Masks and Mask Mandates Were Ineffective at Controlling the Spread of COVID-19,” “Testing for COVID-19 Was Flawed,” “Public Health Officials Disregarded Natural Immunity,” and “Vaccine Mandates Were Not Supported by Science.”
It also acknowledges that school closures “Adversely Impacted Academic Performance that Will Continue for Years,” “Made an Already Alarming Trend in Declining Physical Health Worse,” and “Significantly Contributed to Increased Instances of Mental and Behavioral Health Issues.” Four sections of the report show how “Government Perpetrated COVID-19 Misinformation.” In fact, as Martin Makary told Congress in 2023, “the greatest perpetrator of misinformation during the pandemic [was] the United States government.” The worst misinformation did not come from below, but from above, from power.
Science was not calling the shots. For instance, the Covid policies mandated by the German government claimed to be based on scientific recommendations from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German equivalent of the CDC. But when in 2024 the proceedings (Protokolle) of the RKI internal meetings were released, it turned out that the RKI scientists had been following the government, not the other way around. In the meeting of September 10, 2021, these scientists complained about the pressure put on them by the BMG (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Federal Ministry of Health), and they explicitly acknowledge that “the BMG technically oversees the RKI,” which “cannot claim scientific freedom.” After all, “the RKI’s scientific independence from politics is limited.”
Eight weeks later, on November 5, 2021, the proceedings show that the RKI scientists disagreed with the government’s rhetoric about “vaccines” stopping Covid infection and there being a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” But they chose to remain silent about their disagreement; they argued that their public communications could not be changed because “it would cause great confusion.”
However, shifting your perspective in light of new evidence was precisely the point of the scientific attitude. Galileo and Darwin did not stop speaking their minds because “it would cause great confusion.”
The scientific seal of approval was given to unscientific policies, and the German people were misled into believing that there was a scientific basis where there wasn’t.
The most striking evidence of malfeasance, in any case, can be garnered from another body of internal documents: the “Pfizer papers.” When a Freedom of Information request demanded the release of documents related to the licensing of the Pfizer Covid “vaccine,” the FDA asked to be given 75 years (until 2096!) to be able to process and print the documents. Fortunately, the judge didn’t buy that. More than 450,000 pages of technical documents were eventually released and examined by a team of 3,250 volunteers that included doctors from all specialties, biologists, biostatisticians, and medical fraud investigators.
Their key findings have been summarized in a book edited by Naomi Wolf and Amy Kelly, The Pfizer Papers. According to Pfizer’s own documents, within three months after the rollout of its “vaccine” in December 2020, they knew that it did not work to stop the illness (the documents speak of “vaccine failure”), and caused multiple types of “serious adverse events” (among them “death”). Shortly after, Pfizer was aware that its “vaccine” was damaging the hearts of young people. One of the most shocking revelations is that, long before this mRNA product was strongly recommended to pregnant women, Pfizer knew that its materials entered breast milk and poisoned babies as deaths of newborns after “maternal exposure” to the “vaccine” are recorded in these internal documents. In four cases, breast milk had turned “blue-green.”
But it was not just Pfizer. Similar evidence is surfacing from Moderna and other companies and institutions that knew one thing and said another, and pretended to be heroes while flirting with evil. The Moderna Papers are due to be released this summer.
There was, on many fronts, a multi-pronged attack on our physical and mental health as well as on all standards of decency. Where did all this come from?
This question was asked in about 50 interviews with US and European high-ranking officials and global health specialists (which “granted anonymity [for them] to speak candidly”) in an investigation conducted over a period of seven months by two media outlets, the German Die Welt and the American Politico. This investigation found that governments were not calling the shots either, but toeing a line:
much of the international response to the Covid pandemic passed from governments to a privately overseen global constituency of non-governmental experts.
This “privately overseen global constituency of non-governmental experts” did have “significant financial and political connections that enabled them to achieve such clout at the highest levels of the US government, the European Commission, and the WHO.” And who was privately overseeing this “global constituency of non-governmental experts”? As the joint investigation by Die Welt and Politico reveals, at the core of this network were several entities associated with a big name of fraudulent profiteering (initially through his tech corporation): Bill Gates. The German edition of this joint research is entitled Die Machtmaschine des Bill Gates: “Bill Gates’ Power Machine”. The next question is: What lies behind Bill Gates?
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
@fquigley
I already explained it in my comment in this thread from
Reader
February 4, 2025 at 10:06 pm
as best I could.
If you would like a really good and detailed explanation – read the book by Robert W. Felix which I recommended, I cannot do a better job than he.
I repeat that I do NOT deny the global warming.
What I am saying is that we are now at the PEAK of ANOTHER global warming.
This current global warming is NOT worse than any previous global warming.
The current global warming will be followed by another global cooling no matter what because the Cosmos (the Earth spinning around the Sun and through the Galaxy) has been doing this to Earth for AT LEAST (because we don’t have the earlier data) the last 300,000 years.
The difference between your opinion and mine is that YOU are sure that humanity is powerful enough to overcome the cosmic forces through its burning of fossil fuels, etc. and I am sure it is NOT.
So Reader
Listen to your own words
“If something in nature has been happening for the last 300,000 years, the probability of its continuing on its way is very high.”
So explain those words to the people who read this blog:
What has been happening to climate in the past 300,000
Since you say it you must explain it.
We are now getting down to the brass tacks
Reader
Quote
“Anyway, you have your opinion, I have mine except that your opinion supports the idea that the Earth is severely overpopulated – what should be the logical conclusion? ”
I am not interested in opinion, neither yours or mine.
Rather than there is concentration on the scientific evidence of very rapid global warming as observed by science.
Exclusively so
I insist that people observe also this evidence and accept this evidence
Which is that the earth is suddenly heating up at a pace never before known
The evidence is there. It is presented to the world population in clear terms. This presentation can be improved and must be. But as it stands it can be understood. It’s very very adequate.
If someone like you decides to oppose it then that is not an “opinion ‘
It simply means that such people as Reader are imagining their opposition because it is convenient for them to oppose science.
It is not your opinion.
It is that you oppose the truthfully arrived at data.
In other words deal with the data especially the data from 1700
I insist that your comments do not hide this data of rapid heating of the earth causing climate change
@fquigley
It is not MY timeline, it is the scientific timeline.
If something in nature has been happening for the last 300,000 years, the probability of its continuing on its way is very high.
The humanity which arose fairly recently is like nothing compared to the cosmic forces, I just hope we won’t have to be around to see the next proof of it.
Anyway, you have your opinion, I have mine except that your opinion supports the idea that the Earth is severely overpopulated – what should be the logical conclusion?
I wish our dear rulers worked with each other for the last few centuries instead of looking for enemies, “adversaries” to fight with, and lands to fight over or populations to cull – we would be much better prepared for any future natural disaster.
Reader
This is pretty much your timeline, of the time you have chosen…the last 300,000 years
We have to remember, to be really factual, that this is part of other longer periods, of which we KNOW ABOUT, have huge knowledge about.
And Civilisation has been developed in the last 10,000 years to 12,000 years.
Is that accepted?
“based on ice core analysis, it was discovered that for the last
300,000 years there were major periods (there are variations
within each major period) of warming each of which have
ALWAYS been followed by a period of cooling (which includes an
Ice Age); overall, the warming peaks have been getting lower and
lower – the time periods themselves for either warming and
cooling are very long.”
Here is my hopefully short enough comment:
1) the PTB have convinced themselves that the world is severely
overpopulated and is especially overpopulated with the useless
over-60-year-olds – mRNA technology is one of the means to
cull the population;
2) based on ice core analysis, it was discovered that for the last
300,000 years there were major periods (there are variations
within each major period) of warming each of which have
ALWAYS been followed by a period of cooling (which includes an
Ice Age); overall, the warming peaks have been getting lower and
lower – the time periods themselves for either warming and
cooling are very long.
Sometimes, CO2 rises together with the warming and sometimes
it does not, it may even go in the opposite direction.
We are now on the very tip of the latest warming period, guess
what is going to happen NEXT – in spite of all the extra CO2
produced by humans and their cattle.
In addition, the Earth happens to be a giant magnet (this is
science, NOT a conspiracy theory).
The Earth’s magnetic poles go through the cycles of reversal.
The actual reversal is immediate and is accompanied by a huge
catastrophe but the “waiting period” takes a few thousand years to
get to the pole switch so maybe we will be lucky enough not to
have to witness the next one.
The global warming phenomenon has been severely politicized and weaponized – this is a whole different topic.
In one corner of the ring O’Quigley sits with masses of knowledge about very many aspects of Global Warming
In the other corner sits the insolent Peloni surrounded by his israpundit attenders waving their dirty towels of deceit
Peloni dons a bored expression on his face as he expresses indifference to the growing calamities striking nature
Seems like no contest
Great string of comments.
fquigley
I said not the first thing about the corrupt nonsense which has been put up to support global warming. Frankly, this topic has been well covered and to be honest I find it quite boring. I mean do we really have to wade into this topic all over again, and again. Well, have at it if it fills your day, but I have better things to do than this.
One point which I will note which is not actually related to the Global Warming/Cooling hoax, is that, regarding your AI comment, I do find it interesting that the machine learning has been tooled in such a way as to agree that research can be manipulated and untrustworthy, but that Global Warming, which is the fanciful product of such flawed data, could be stated to be a known fact.
“We don’t need the evidence, which could be flawed, because we already know it as a fact”, seems to be what the Mr. Jemini is stating.
Quite revealing, in fact, but still quite boring…to me in any event.
By the way, I am quite familiar with the use of AI, and it is important that when you supply the response coming from an AI, such as Gemini, you should also include the query which stimulated the response. So perhaps you will do so in the future if this sort of thing is to be your new source of “factual evidence” as you are attempting to leverage it here. Just a thought.
@Edgar
To be clear, the Pfizer Papers are key evidence that both the FDA and Phizer both knew that the shots were both neither effective nor safe, but the evidence contained in these records is all short term documentation. It contains not the slightest input on the long term consequences of the shots.
So while it is important and revealing, it is still quite limited. And even this was to be kept from the public for 75yrs.
Just FYI.
It first of all has no relevance to the science of global warming
I got this answer from the AI tool Gemini
“You’re right to emphasize the strong consensus and overwhelming evidence supporting the reality of global warming. While Ioannidis’s work is important for understanding the complexities of research and the potential for flawed studies in general, it’s not relevant to the fundamental question of whether the Earth is warming. The evidence for climate change is so robust and comes from so many independent sources that it transcends the kind of concerns Ioannidis raises about individual studies. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect, combined with multiple lines of empirical evidence (temperature records, ice melt, sea level rise, etc.), makes the reality of global warming undeniable. “
John Galt
“Care to amend your utterly stupid statement?
Global Warming? No one not being paid to support this nonsense, believes that garbage anymore”
Your position to Global Warming is no different to trump and Peloni.
You call it nonsense but 99.per cent reckon the opposite to you
You make no argument…based on any fact. I notice that most of the farmers in Ireland disagree strongly with you.
I am certainly prepared to offer facts that earth warms fast
The most important practical info from this article must be
THE PFIZER PAPERS, since it relates to thec whole world.
@fquigley
Peloni is too much of a gentleman to say some of the things I think were warranted in response to your current (and past) comments, but I’m not. I may be mistaken, but i recall someone posting a comment here a number of years ago criticizing Peloni’s comments as being too verbose or words to that effect. Am thinking it was you. Either way, beautiful prose is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, it’s subjective. Having said that, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who, when he was asked how to describe his test for obscenity, responded: “I know it when I see it”, I believe I know great prose when I see it, and in my subjective opinion Peloni’s many erudite, measured and thoughtful posts fall into that category, while yours, I’m sorry to say, do not. My late father-in-law used to say, it’s the manner, not the matter. In other words, there’s always a way to say something without coming across as arrogant, rude or unhinged. Good manners cost nothing.
Why is there not one mention of transgender surgery? This, a complete and utter fraud. It is nothing more than radical cosmetic surgery and any doctor who claims to be able to actually do this is at least too ignorant to practice medicine and maybe, much worse, imposing some cruel punishment on young people corralled into believing something that only a little education would debunk.
“It may be related to the reaction of a crazy rich man clearing away somewhere after the capitalist system has destroyed earth (make it unlivable) by the fossil fuel industry pushing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so causing Global Warming of the planet.”
Fact: COMMUNIST China burns more coal for power in a year than all the other countries in the world combined. Read that again and memorize it before you speak or write again.
Care to amend your utterly stupid statement?
Global Warming? No one not being paid to support this nonsense, believes that garbage anymore.
@fquigley
If you are going to be as petty as to critique my prose, you might spend some time trying to keep informed on the subject on which you are speaking. Whereas this is not usually a problem for you, your questions below demonstrate a paucity of facts on which you should be well informed, or so I would have thought given your certain support for the toxic shots which have been dispensed as a vaccine over the past several years.
In any event, onto your questions:
1.
This is so wrong that I read it several times to be certain that you weren’t being sarcastic, but I don’t believe that was your intent. Project Warp Speed was the public-private initiative undertaken to bring the proposed shots to market with limited testing and challenged data, so as to “save” the world from Covid while all other forms of medicinal interventions were withheld from the dying. Also, Project Warp Speed had been discussed/planned well in advance of 2020 when the supposed accidental lab leak which took place in Wuhan.
2.
Wrong again. Project Stargate is the $500 billion investment project recently announced by Trump, Ellison and others which includes a massive investment into using the same mRNA platform from Project Warp Speed to develop a personalized supposed cure for cancer, all while ignoring the many tragedies which have befallen so many people after having taken the original mRNA shots. Of course, the point of including the seemingly unrelated topic of vaccines within the AI proposal of Project Stargate is so that full indemnification might be extended to the project.
3.
Since you took the liberty of chastising my own humble attempts at communicating my thoughts, I feel that it is fair game to offer my own commentary on your somewhat disheveled comment above, but I will resist the urge to do more than this.
In any event, the relevance and import the topics which you seem unfamiliar in both questions 1 & 2, really do demonstrate that we really don’t have much to discuss, at least not until you become better acquainted with these enterprises which have and will, respectively, changed the world in which we live. I look forward to talking to you on these topics when you get up to speed on them (please forgive the pun)
Peloni
“As Project Stargate is in line to be the follow up to Project Warp Speed, closer attention should be paid to the unbridled assault on public health to bring Warp Speed online, and the reality is that all this assault began while manipulating scientific research to satisfy corporate profits rather than scientific inquiry. And while Warp Speed was catastrophic, it will be dwarfed by the much grander, more ambitious, better funded, and more far reaching followup program, Stargate. Bring scientific research back to support the principles of scientific inquiry and out of the pockets of corporate profiteers and stop this madness.”
Can you please explain the following
1. Warp Speed is no more than a kind of nick name to refer to the speed at which vaccines were created, tested and produced. Just that. It doesn’t say anything about this coronavirus in particular and what science says
2. Stargate refers to Elon Musk and his hobby horse of sending rockets to Mars etc. why is Musk doing this?
3. It may be related to the reaction of a crazy rich man clearing away somewhere after the capitalist system has destroyed earth (make it unlivable) by the fossil fuel industry pushing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so causing Global Warming of the planet
In the past Reader was on to you trying to make your prose more direct to the issue at hand. I do second Reader.
Reader can have his own say on this. It’s a vital issue. But a warning…I now think that Peloni cannot write clearly because his own ideas are pretty screwy to begin with.
And he writes in lawyer style disguising meaning as he goes. A petty affair. Way to control.
@keelie
I completely agree. And the effects of the exclusively captured state of scientific inquiry has had a lethal effect.
One of the problems about “science” is that most people haven’t a clue about what the word itself entails. Adding to this ignorance is that as an Engineer, absolutely nobody knows (or cares) about what Engineers do. And this applies to my own family, much to my astonishment.
There are two types of science: “pure science” and “applied science”. As far as I see there isn’t much “pure science” being undertaken these days; most “scientists” are working to fulfill the commercial needs their respective corporations. This very definitely applies to Engineers too, as Engineers are without a doubt “applied scientists”. In other words we use “pure science” as the basis for the work we do.
The so-called bottom line in all of this is that this level of general ignorance about what science is, is unforgivable given that everything we use in this world is based on science – “pure” and “applied”.