{"id":233464,"date":"2023-04-17T12:00:15","date_gmt":"2023-04-17T11:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=233464"},"modified":"2023-04-13T05:13:35","modified_gmt":"2023-04-13T04:13:35","slug":"suspension-of-curiosity-leads-to-serious-adverse-events","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2023\/04\/suspension-of-curiosity-leads-to-serious-adverse-events\/","title":{"rendered":"Suspension of Curiosity Leads to Serious Adverse Events"},"content":{"rendered":"

Analysis of and Excerpt from Celia Farber\u2019s Book on the History of AIDS<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

11 Apr 2023 – <\/em>Science requires curiosity. It requires honesty, openness, thoroughness, and a deep enough humility to search for your own errors, and to state them publicly when you discover them. But the government, in its role as the primary funder of science, is driving scientists to become less curious, less open, less thorough, and less humble. The system in which American science has existed for decades is antithetical to actually doing science.<\/p>\n

In 2006, Celia Farber wrote Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS<\/em>. It has just been republished by Chelsea Green Publishing<\/a>. On page 23, Farber writes:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe NIH maintains tight control over the ideas that emanate from U.S. government science, and that control extends to the media, who are rewarded and punished in accordance with their suspension of curiosity.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Curiosity is the linchpin of science. What if? How does it work? Why is it that way?<\/em> We suspend our curiosity at our peril. Generating all possible hypotheses, even those that seem ludicrous at first glance\u2014this is the purview of science. If we are to understand what is true, then we must explore all the possibilities. What if the world isn\u2019t as we think it is\u2014wouldn\u2019t you like to know? I would.<\/p>\n

What we believe is sometimes handed to us in the guise of science\u2014here is the answer. Once we all agree on that answer, it can seem crazy, dangerous even, to question what is now understood. Obviously the Spanish Flu of 1918 was unavoidably fatal to young people. Or was it?\u00a0<\/a><\/em>1\u00a0\u00a0<\/a>Obviously mRNA vaccines against Covid are safe and effective. Or are they? <\/em>Obviously HIV causes AIDS. Or does it?<\/em> What is the evidence, and how thoroughly have the alternative hypotheses been investigated?<\/p>\n

Farber\u2019s powerful book addresses that last topic, along with several other questions pertaining to AIDS. Simultaneously, it reveals the playbook by which the government and media suppress scientific curiosity, while enforcing orthodoxy and compliance on a largely unwitting populace.<\/p>\n

One of the arrows in the quiver of compliance is to make those who question the orthodoxy out to be an enemy of the people. Those who question the consensus are literally killing people. They should be ashamed of themselves. If they don\u2019t have the common sense and decency to shut up, then it is our obligation to do it for them 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Those are obvious tactics, and blunt. Some are more subtle. Doctor Peter Duesberg, the loudest and most persistent defender of the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS, was indeed told that he was killing people, then systematically removed from polite society and mainstream science\u2014he was denied grants, grad students, and publications. But he was also pilloried in part for suggesting that choices people were making might be contributing to the progression of the disease. Is it possible that having sex with hundreds or thousands of strangers, or doing a lot of street drugs, puts your body under greater stress, and makes you more susceptible to illness, than if you did not do such things? How dare he.<\/p>\n

Kary Mullis, the scientist who won the Nobel Prize for his invention of PCR, was outraged by Peter Duesberg\u2019s treatment at the hands of mainstream scientific institutions. As he told Farber, \u201cPeter has been abused seriously by the scientific establishment, to the point where he can\u2019t even do any research. Not only that, but his whole life is pretty much in disarray because of this, and it is only because he has refused to compromise his scientific moral standards. There ought to be some goddamn private foundation in the country, that would say, \u2018Well, we\u2019ll move in where the NIH dropped off. We\u2019ll take care of it. You just keep right on saying what you\u2019re saying, Peter. We think you\u2019re an asshole, and we think you are wrong, but you\u2019re the only dissenter, and we need one, because it\u2019s science, it\u2019s not religion.\u2019\u201d 3<\/a><\/p>\n

Mullis continues: \u201cI am waiting to be convinced that we\u2019re wrong. I know it ain\u2019t going to happen. But if it does, I will tell you this much\u2014I will be the first person to admit it.\u201d<\/p>\n

That is what true scientists sound like. And that is why science, as done by scientists, is the route by which we attain an ever more accurate model of the world in which we live. False consensus and arrogance are replacing curiosity and humility, and this is how science dies.<\/p>\n

As AIDS emerged into human bodies and consciousness and became a global phenomenon, the following patterns emerged, as reported by Farber in Serious Adverse Events. <\/em>4<\/a><\/p>\n