The following is taken from Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation, the one in which he warned us of the “military-industrial complex” that has long since engulfed us. These words are about science.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Most scientific research today is funded by the Federal government, a large share of that from NIH, or the National Institutes of Health, which has dispensed billions of dollars in grants over time. The result is as predictable as hanging out a savory ham from a high ceiling in a dog pound – barking, jumping, fighting, snarling …
Csaba Szaba merely chronicles in his book Unreliable what has happened to scientific research in his field, medicine. What is there is suspect, always. Nothing can be relied upon. Massive funding has led it down a path as predictable as the Little Lamb following Mary.
Steve McIntrye wrote about the same phenomenon in climate research, but not in particular about the way research dollars have corrupted the field. Rather, he wrote about how the field of climatology is corrupt. Nothing can be relied upon. I will always take heart at his words, as the sarcasm is so well targeted. He reviewed a paper by Jan Esper, et al, which in effect merely regurgitated the fraud behind Michal Mann’s Hockey Stick, aka MBH 98. I love his conclusion:
“And, at the end of the day, Esper et al (2024) is best described as climate pornography. In the premier modern journal for climate pornography: Nature. And while climate partisans (and scientists) pretend to read the articles and the fine print, in reality, they, like Penthouse readers in the 1980s, are only interested in the centerfold. In the present case, an air brushed hockey stick diagram. A diagram that raises the same question that Penthouse readers asked back in the day: real or fake?”
McIntyre’s paper is full of scientific graphics and reasoning, well enough explained that it reduces the challenge to the layman. Even so, as I have often written, take the challenge! It is not above you. Of course you will, like me, come out a bit bewildered and confused, but the road to understanding is littered with such difficulties.
I like Szabo’s book, as it is written in understandable terms, and has lots of cartoons! In the end, he is describing a system so broken and corrupt that it cannot be fixed. What we need now is a “…solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop…” and lots of new blackboards. That is the source of all scientific breakthroughs. We won’t go there again until the money goes away.
___________________
Dr. Mark Bailey’s book is not called “Unreadable”, but rather “A Farewell to Virology.” I don’t know if I am commenting on my own inadequacies. I might be. I chose to read the book in the late evening before bedtime, wanting to avoid any stimulation as might be produced by TV and YouTube. Dr. Bailey delivers.
What I sought in this book is what Chomsky described, and I must paraphrase (but you understand the thrust), that if a person does not understand a subject well enough that it can be put in understandable words for the layperson, then that person does not understand the subject. I know, Einstein (is said to have) said that things must be made as simple as possible, but not more so. What I found in Dr. Bailey’s book was jargon and terminology and processes that are not simplified down to understandable terms.
“What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school… It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it. You see my physics students don’t understand it… That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.”
―
Dr. Bailey needs to convince me that he understands virology well enough to bid it farewell. In early 2020 I knew there was no virus named SARS-CoV-2, and later took it upon myself to read Virus Mania, a hard tract to plow through. I had already made my way through the AIDS hoax, understanding that there was no AIDS virus and that we were dealing with science fraud leading to murder on a massive scale. So I don’t need to be primed on two things: 1) Leading scientists are corrupt and do three things well: Lie, lie and then lie some more; and 2) Ordinary scientists only know to follow, to run with the pack, or seek an honest living doing something else.
But why seek an honest living doing something else when dishonest pays so well?
Anyway, Dr. Bailey’s book is thin, 120 pages, and not indexed.
Piece of Mindful 
You can’t be serious. You don’t understand the book, therefore, you don’t find it convincing? And therefore it may not be right? Who exactly is the one who said that if you can’t explain something easily you don’t understand it? I don’t think you tried very hard or have sufficient background.
It might be preferable that it be an easy read, but there are subjects that take work to learn. It’s taken me five years and counting to learn something relevant about virology.
I am now at the end of re-reading a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for the third time. I taught it college level and now I’m doing my most careful re-read; it’s taken three months and I’m just about done. It’s not easy. I am having to think carefully and consider the ideas. And I know this book well.
Yes, Farewell to Virology it is dense. I was one of the consultants on the project, in my field of specialty, the PCR. Because of the density of the essay, I worked with Mike Stone to pull quotes and assembled them and published them myself.
Everything checks out. It’s a simple thesis and there are no gaps here. In your article above you make no effort to even try to explain it.
The core concept is that virology set up rules that it has to follow way back at the beginning, and then it ignored them ever since, including today.
So you have to do some work. Mark is not a flashy writer. He is a doctor, not a journalist. He is a technical specialist. But the book is logical and you can parse the syntax and technicalities if you care enough and take it slow. Note that it is within the density of the subject that the fraud is hidden even from the practitioners and advocates of virology.
https://audio.pwfm.tech/documents/farewell-to-virology-excerpts.pdf
LikeLike
I thought I had approved your comment an hour ago, guess not.
Yours is fair criticism and I accept it in good graces, nothing that I should have added “With all due respect” to the Dr. Bailey book. In my defense, after reading A Farewell ., I went to my stack of papers and recovered Stefan Lanka and all of his work, and he speaks highly of the Bailey’s (if I am quoting the right source within, as Mike Stone of Viroliegy features prominently. In addition, I have read and re-read Virus Mania, and Inventing the AIDS Virus – when I say re-read, I mean that I paste flags on significant passages and then later dictate those into a word file to help my retention, which still ain’t good. I have also followed Cowan and Kaufman, keeping my distance, as I have trust issues with people who pop up and become instantly famous (in our circles) at a most convenient time. On 3/11/2020 I knew intuitively because of the date that there was no SARS-CoV-2, and wrote as much, but it took time, months, to come around to the no-virus viewpoint. Now I am OK.
I ask, however, who is Dr. Bailey’s book targeted at? If virologists, they won’t be reading it. They either know intuitively that they are engaged in junk science, or if they don’t know, aren’t observant enough. If targeting the layman, then he needs to do as Lanka does so well, write in a fashion that the layman can process. I don’t claim to be anything but curious, but am not brilliant. Very little in his book will stick to my ribs, I am afraid.
LikeLike
Re A Farewell to Virology
Thanks Mark. It was never intended as a book; I considered it a scholarly article. And it has hundreds of thousands of downloads. The only intended audience, I thought, were existing followers of Dr Sam’s channel.
However, recognizing the readability issue, I immediately initiated a project to break it down for the reader and worked with Mike Stone to do that. I am also an editor. Mark Bailey is not. I write for the popular press, meaning the general public; Mark is a technical writer.
You may know that I am the author of the Covid Chronology (my most technical work).
I mean the 325-page primary source one that spans 2006-2021 (posted at the end). I consider it a work in the same category as Farewell: to establish the record. I have no idea whether my chronology is “readable” — it’s not Grisham and it’s not the Planet Waves horoscope.
Astrology (my other field) is, in any sincere expression, potentially highly technical (I am also a planetary astronomer as a direct result of entering astrology). Therefore I put all of my talent into making my astrology writing accessible — and it’s still not easy because people have extremely short attention spans, they have poor reading comprehension and most don’t care. I have to live half within the reader’s mind. It’s hard to do that when the topic is extremely technical.
But like my chronology, I consider A Farewell to Virology to be written for the present and also for posterity. I see you have a developed a background in the field; the question is what in addition to book reviews are you doing with your knowledge?
It took me at least 50 runs explaining the PCR on my program to be able to get it down to an elevator pitch.
With works like Farewell, it’s often a succession of writers who drive the point home, one building on the next. The problem we face with virology is that it seems complicated (it’s really a branch of biotechnology) and yet the problems that Bailey points out are simple. I will repeat what I think is the core thesis: virology set up principles to which it said it would adhere, and then never did so. Not once.
So to clarify the work, I immediately invited Bailey onto my program and we talked the issues through.
To reach any point of grasping the fraud, though, one must to get through the morass of “molecular biology” and all the hocus-pocus however you spell it that virologists throw in your way and all the unsubstantiated claims they make.
A month ago I sat down in person with one of the top virologists at SUNY Buffalo. He made one claim after the next and would not budge one inch on any of the problems. I recognized every fallacy and yet each one would have taken an hour to refute.
What we are not understanding is that this is just like Roundup. No matter how many billion dollar settlements for lymphoma there are, people will still poison their yards and their homes until it’s not available.
Meantime the outstanding work of me and my team documenting daily events from 2020-2023 (and major events back to 2006) deserves to be better understood and in the hands of more people. But it’s a real yawner, until it’s explicated into a narrative, and even then, all most people will care about is the new McNugget sauce or alternatively their belly fat.
Bailey’s article works for those who need it.
https://chironreturn.org/chronology/
LikeLike
I appreciate your words here. One of the problems I had reading Bailey was not with him, but rather the intractable and insular nature of the profession, which speaks more of denial than adherence to any science. I had it in mind to approach the topic from high above, the ultimate objective of virology and vaccines, to protect financial interests from lawsuits. I saw this very clearly with Zika, where Argentine doctors claimed that the microcephaly epidemic was caused by a pesticide advanced by a Japanese subsidiary of Monsanto. Rappoport talked about Chomsky writing in the 90s (his better works) about a pygmy population in Brazil. I take the date of the Enders measles paper (1954) to signify a closed-room decision that the real causes of polio had to be covered up, so that the disease had to be misdirected away from lead arsenate and DDT. Virology was employed as the ultimate coverup. In the ensuing days vaccines became a cash cow, so new viral diseases had to be invented.
It all sounds conspiratorial, right? Yep. That’s where I’m at.
Keep,up what you’re doing, ignore detractors who are missing your and Bailey’s ultimate objectives. Thanks for your contribution here.
LikeLike
As usual Mark, I would suspect this is a controlled opposition book. It is written to be there so someone doesn’t write the book you want or if they have written it now it’s spread is diluted. Bailey’s work around viruses is pretty good but that doesn’t mean he is not controlled opposition. As we move further up the mountain it all needs to be much more subtle. Basically the top level control is mostly about limiting the exposure of this information more so than misleading people like you.
Anyway as you know I’ve got nothing against the controlled opposition. I really like most of Bailey’s virus work and I’m pretty sure they now admit they were wrong about vitamin d and more.
LikeLike
By the way, my blog automatically sets aside first-time comments, but once you pass that hurdle, you should have no impediments here.
LikeLike
Why does EFCetc. sound like an AI robot? No insult intended, just recommend a more relaxing tone if you post here. We try not to attack each other over petty differences here.
LikeLike
“… the ultimate objective of virology and vaccines, to protect financial interests from lawsuits.”
Cover-ups of industry malfeasance do provide a natural incentive for “conspiracy,” which is after all recognized by the legal system, and sometimes officially admitted or exposed decades later (probably with new layers of misdirection, but that aside.)
One of Jennifer Daniels best podcast episodes was her speculation on what had happened in Lyme, Connecticut. Based on principles of epidemiology, the nature of the “outbreak” they were experiencing, it was clear that tick-borne illness was misdirection from more likely a very bad vaccine batch. It made no sense otherwise, but the cover story satisfied the distraught upper middle class parents, whose doctors had been blaming – their genes! Which was an unacceptable answer..
LikeLike
My mother supposedly had Lyme disease. Of course diagnosed by doctors. Whom she unfortunately placed too much trust in. She is a petite woman who worked very hard in service jobs – I don’t know the details but living in NH she believed her doctors and took antibiotics for long stretches of time – which will fuck you up royally and put you in a disease state. I literally walk in the NE woods every day, virtually my whole life, and have only a handful of bad tick bites. Basically the skin around the tick bite turned nasty then sloughed off after a week. Never any other effects.
LikeLike
Sigmund Freud may have been involved in an early cover story for the medical industry, imo. His emphasis on neuroses, hysteria, etc was maybe just a more elaborate or pseudo-scientific version of what doctors do naturally when their own “cures” harm the patient – gaslight and blame the victim.
His ideas had widespread promotion, and I think I recall he had funding or some connection to the medical industry. Their toxic mercury cures, or whatever else, may have needed a cover story. It would make sense in a way if he was basically a PR spin operation, since everyone knows his nephew Bernays went into that profession as well… Freud was just so good at it that, while probably not considered “scientific” today, he at least has more a patina of respectability than a self-proclaimed spinmeister like Bernays.
LikeLike
Nice hypothesis. Freud, along with Einstein and Marx, were major “thinkers” whose BS ideas were promoted to the max. Pedophile and drug addict, what else can you say?
LikeLike
Not sure if you’ve seen this from 8(!) years ago-https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/06/05/three-jews-three/
LikeLike
Is that your piece? Read it quickly, will savor later. I have heard the Zionist hypothesis; i.e. these dudes were promoted also to make the tribe look good, i.e. the greatest thinkers ever. That deserves an oy vey.
LikeLike
I had completely forgotten that piece by Tyrone.
LikeLike
Thanks Ray. I *think* I can take credit, every now and then I put some pieces together just based on mainstream sources..
LikeLike
Dave Sabo guitarist for the band Skid Row is a Szabo, he just changed the spelling and probably related to Csaba Szabo. I don’t think it’s a common name. That band popped up and become instantly famous.
LikeLike