Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Matt Bowen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matt Bowen. Show all posts
Matt Bowen ✍ I always immediately recall this very question being asked in the 1971 Dalton Trumbo movie Johnny Got His Gun, based on the 1939 novel of the same name and Author, to which an excerpt of the answer given is; "It’s got something to do with young men killing each other".

I would say that Johnny Got His Gun is primarily an anti-war movie, I can’t honestly say I enjoyed the film, but this is not a movie review, I’m more concerned with the themes it explores and the analysis of those themes. It critiques the use of democracy as a justification for war and explores how ideals such as democracy are manipulated by those in power. It suggests that if democracy is used to justify unimaginable suffering without consent or clarity, it becomes a hypocritical slogan, not a genuine principle. Not too dissimilar from that explored in Johnny Got His Gun, over fifty years after the movie was released, a recent well-written article here on TPQ(1) by Cam Ogie outlined concern for particular actions of late, and suggested that if these actions are democracy, then words have lost meaning. Indeed Cam suggests the same; “Democracy as slogan, not principle”.

I asked in the comments section under Cam’s article the same question from the movie; what is democracy?

I mentioned that democracy means different things to different people, but the intent of my question was more to do with; what is the definition of democracy? If we have a definition, then we can say whether the word has indeed lost it’s meaning, and then explore the differences between what it now means, and what it is supposed to mean. Easier said than done.

According to Wikipedia, a precise definition of democracy does not exist.(2)

Although democracy is generally understood to be defined by voting, no consensus exists on a precise definition of democracy. Karl Popper says that the "classical" view of democracy is, "in brief, the theory that democracy is the rule of the people and that the people have a right to rule". One study identified 2,234 adjectives used to describe democracy in the English language.

2,234 adjectives in the English language to describe democracy, that's a fair amount. Does this mean that everytime anyone uses the word "democracy" they have all 2,234 adjectives in mind? I would suggest not. In fact, whenever someone uses the word, without significant context it's very difficult to ascertain exactly what they mean. I have often sought clarification in personal discussions whenever someone uses the word, and more often than not, I fail to receive it. It seems that some are much more clear on what it isn't, rather than what it is.

Philosophers and Scholars have long discussed this topic.

Perhaps if we start with Popper's classical view and also the general understanding that democracy is defined by voting. I would suggest that the former has a certain amount of ambiguity but, from my understanding, it does not appear to me that in practice it's "the people" that rule, and as to whether the people can exercise "the right to rule" has it's own set of problems. But what about the latter; voting. It could be said that these two are intertwined. If it's the people that vote, then does that mean it's the people that rule? Again, I would say that it does not appear that way in practice to me.

We can contrast "direct democracy" where people can vote directly on policy, with "representative democracy" where people vote on representatives that will then decide policy. Some countries have a semi-direct system, but by-in-large in The West, the dominant system is representative. Elections are supposed to be free and fair, where each vote is equal, and the impression is given that the result is the majority rules.

A form of representative democracy is liberal democracy. Constitutional protections are supposed to be in place, such as an independent judiciary and legal institutions, due process and rule of law. These checks and balances are supposed to protect civil liberties, rights of the minority, safeguard against oppressive governmental over-reach and prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

Austrian Political Economist Joseph Schumpeter’s controversial suggestion(3) was that:

the formation of a government is the endpoint of the democratic process, which means that for the purposes of his democratic theory, he has no comment on what kinds of decisions that the government can take to be a democracy.

Let’s take a closer look at voting for the formation of government.

Suffrage or the right to vote, has changed throughout history all around the world. In modern times more people now have the right to vote, although disfranchisement or not having the right to vote still occurs. Within Schumpeter’s theory for the definition of democracy, his was more “the method by which people elect representatives in competitive elections to carry out their will.”

There are currently different systems that can be used to determine elections, the Single Transferable Vote (STV), First Past the Post (FPTP), Additional Member System (AMS), to name but a few.

The YouTube Channel Veritasium has a very interesting and informative video titled Why Democracy Is Mathematically Impossible.(4)In this video, various voting systems are analysed and explained along with visual aids to show mathematically why this looks very much to be the case, with FPTP in particular receiving criticism. However, that is only a mathematical analysis of voting systems. Of course when other various factors are also taken into account such as; subversion, voter manipulation, voter suppression, gerrymandering, voter intimidation, electoral fraud, voter fraud, election interference, election denial etc, we can add these to the equation, and if the result of the maths looked bad before, it’s now looking even worse.

Election manipulation, and election denial is nothing new. These terms along with election interference were thrown around fairly recently, notably in the U.S.

A 2018 article for The New York Times(5) by Scott Shane mentions a study by Carnegie Mellon scholar Dov H. Levin, where Levin found that from the years 1946-2000 there were 81 counts by the United States and 36 counts by the Soviet Union or Russia of both “overt and covert election influence operations”.

The article quotes Steven L. Hall who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A. where he was the chief of Russian operations as saying;

if you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,” The United States “absolutely” has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, “and I hope we keep doing it”.

The dean of American Intelligence Scholars Loch K. Johnson is also quoted as saying “We’ve been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947”.
 
The article does state that both Hall and Johnson argue that the interference by the U.S. is not morally equivalent to that of Russia. Somehow that assertion does not surprise me.

I found it an interesting piece that contained other quotes and details, but also in this very same article by Shane, we see a similar question being asked; "what does democracy mean?"

The article does not offer an answer.

It’s not agreed that voting alone for the formation of government is the overall defining element of democracy. So let’s look at some other commonly described attributes.

Consider the following excerpt from Wikipedia(6);

Features of democracy often include freedom of assembly, association, personal property, freedom of religion and speech, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.

Those attributes are not exhaustive. Remember that 2,234 adjectives have been found to describe democracy, to try and address all 2,234, it would be a very long article indeed. But have a look through that excerpt from Wikipedia, and whichever "democratic" country you happen to reside in, ask yourself, how many of those attributes do you actually have, or how many do you perceive to be under threat?

In the U.S. right now, is the killing of Renee Nicole Good by I.C.E agent Jonathan Ross not to be considered as unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life? Are there other examples of such acts? Does the consent of the governed exist? Do you still have freedom of speech, or freedom of association or assembly?

The answer to some of those questions I am sure would vary between different folk and different countries, but I think we are seeing an increasing amount of people that would claim, perhaps rightly so, that those rights are not being protected, they are being eroded or, they simply don’t exist. Which brings us back to the original question, if democracy is not solely about voting, and if so-called democratic countries are not upholding the other attributes, then what is democracy?

Maybe Cam Ogie was right, words have lost meaning. I would certainly say there are plenty of words that have lost meaning over time, but with democracy we can’t even define it.

I think that democracy in practice is an illusion, where the common people believe they have a say, when in reality it’s not the case, and much like the analysis of Johnny Got His Gun, it is also a hypocritical slogan, it's a trigger word. It can invoke something in people. In fact, to accuse someone of being anti-democratic is used as a slur. It is used hypocritically to justify atrocity. It can invoke a reflex reaction that it is something to defend, something to fight for, something to kill for, something to die for. Yet for those in which these feelings or actions are invoked, they struggle to articulate exactly what it is they are killing and dying for. Some so-called democratic countries will actually dictate what other countries can do, and if they don't comply, they're more than happy to bomb "democracy" into them, more so when those countries do not possess the ability to defend themselves and there is less fear of reprisal, they then interfere in their so-called democratic elections, if indeed these elections even take place. Justification for this with a single solitary word that is devoid of meaning just so happens to be sufficient enough for those that are still taken in by the illusion. "Democracy!"

In many ways, democracy can be considered a paradox. Some of these paradoxes are explored by the Belgian political theorist Chantal Mouffe in her collection of essays aptly titled The Democratic Paradox.(8)

Also, consider how Donald Trump is often labelled by some as a dictator. A recent image of him after the illegal invasion of Venezuela and the subsequent kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, shows Trump with a Hitler type moustache of dripping crude oil. Yet some will assert that the very fact Donald Trump is President of the U.S. is down to democratic processes. If a democratic process can result in a dictatorship, is that not paradoxical? We can even see in the U.K. and Europe that those elected and supposed to represent the people, are putting policies into place that are limiting ideals which seems far from representing the very people that voted for them, yet again, paradoxically, these are the results of so-called democratic processes.

Some may point out that democracy contrasts with a dictatorship in that there are checks and balances that limit the power of the elected. I would argue that these checks and balances are far from sufficient. One such check on power in a democracy in attempt to avoid dictatorship is "Term Limits". But is this just another part of the illusion? Do we simply replace one dictator with another after their term limit is reached? Or is the political figurehead the illusion and policy is being dictated elsewhere by others?

Critics argue that modern democracies may fail to be sufficiently democratic and instead function in practice as oligarchies, insofar as governments are more responsive to the preferences of economic elites than to those of ordinary citizens. Numerous empirical studies across various western democracies including the United States, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Norway and Germany have consistently found that elected representatives tend to respond more to the preferences of very affluent citizens for policy outcomes than those of the average voter.(7)

Some descriptors of democracy make it seem fair in theory, but in practice we can see a different picture. I would suggest, to avoid using the word if you do not also provide sufficient context to make it precisely clear what it is you mean, especially if you’re likely to fold under questioning when asked for clarification. If the word invokes some sort of sense or feeling, perhaps your mind can steer away from being triggered by the word democracy and instead focus on the specific liberal attributes instead; rights, equity, equality, justice, liberty, freedom, and so on. Values like these make sense, but to invoke the word democracy if it doesn’t contain such values, does not make sense at all.

What does democracy mean to you?

The Veritasium video I previously mentioned concludes with the statement;

Democracy is not perfect, but it’s the best thing we’ve got. The game might be crooked, but it’s the only game in town.

If the only game in town is crooked, then it desperately needs repaired, and if it can’t be repaired, then is it time for a new game?

References

(1) The Pensive Quill - Cam Ogie - If This Is “Democracy,” Then Words No Longer Mean Anything - 

(2) Democracy.

(3) Joseph Schumpeter.

(4) Why Democracy is mathematically Impossible.

(5) Scott Shane for the New York Times.

(6) Democracy.

(7) Democracy - Criticism.

(8) Chantal Mouffe – The Democratic Paradox 

⏩Matt Bowen is a researcher and commentator.

What Is Democracy?

Matt Bowen ✍ I’ve been an avid reader of The Quill for quite some time now. 

I’ve never commented before and I had previously intended to pen some articles on various topics to submit for consideration of publication on The Quill, however, my lack of writing experience along with time constraints has meant that thus far, the articles I intended to write have not yet come to fruition. Except this one.

After reading the article submitted by John Coulter regarding Autism and the MMR Vaccine I was inspired to immediately begin to pen this response. Autism and the history of Autism is a topic I’ve spent many years researching, it’s something I can talk about at length. (1)

In John’s article he touched upon how the mere mention of vaccines, in particular the MMR vaccine and Autism in the same sentence is considered taboo, often met with ridicule, with a list of derogatory labels applied to anyone who may suggest a link between the two. It’s true, it happens, but, now imagine the reaction to those that might suggest that Autism doesn’t even exist at all. That would be quite the shock wouldn’t it. Not just a shock, it's something to some that is so offensive, so ridiculous and inconceivable that one would be very lucky for anybody to even hear the argument out.

I have friends and family that have received an Autism diagnosis. I also have experience working with children that have an Autism diagnosis, all of varying severity on the spectrum. And at various stages throughout my life, I have even been encouraged to seek a diagnosis of Autism for myself. I’m sure many readers will know of someone, without too many degrees of separation, that have a diagnosis for Autism. John in his article also detailed his own experience with a family member diagnosed Autistic. So how could or should such a ludicrous suggestion that it doesn’t exist be given any credence whatsoever?

This article would be far too long to include the entire history of Autism. Although it is important we take a brief look at certain parts of it.

The actual word “Autism” according to Wikipedia is said to have first been introduced by Eugen Bleuler in 1911. At this stage it was still linked to schizophrenia, which itself at the time was a condition that was splintered off of dementia. It should be noted that the medical names given at this time in history were different to how the exact same terms are applied today. I should also mention that although the term Autism is said to have been coined at this time, there had been publications of various observations and descriptions of conditions with similar criteria dating back as early as the 1700's.

Between 1911 and the 1940's other people of note who contributed to research surrounding Autism were Russian Psychiatrist Grunya Sukhareva, who was said to be the first person to pathologize Autism, and Austrian physicians Leo Kanner, and Hans Asperger, the latter’s name would later go on to be used for Aspergers Syndrome although Hans did not coin the term himself. In 1943, Kanner diagnosed Donald Triplett. Known as "Case One", Triplett is said to be the first person to receive a diagnosis of Autism, some thirty years after the term was said to have first been coined.

I can’t include a full write-up of every single person involved in the research and evolution of Autism -  you can certainly look into them in your own time. I would very much encourage anyone interested to do so, as you will find that many of the people involved have dubious backgrounds to say the least. You might, as I have found, begin to see rather interesting links appear every time any revision is made to the definition of Autism as well as other mental and psychological disorders as the years progress. It’s very important to consider the dates in relation to what daily life would have been like, how the political landscape was, what other major events were happening in the world at these times, what new substances, drugs, medicines, pharmacological additions were being made, how medical practices and research was conducted, as we all should well know that many medical practices and human research conducted in the past is today considered archaic and highly unethical and very rightly so. Luckily we have moved on from the archaic as science has progressed, and thank goodness in today’s eternally moral population unethical human experimentation is consigned to the past, or is it?
 
Well that's a topic that can have a much more in-depth discussion another time. Anyone interested in a refresher course on unethical human experimentation and just how cruel one human being can be to another, can find a list here and I'm sure there are many more examples that are not on that list.(2)

The diagnosis of Autism continued to evolve over the years to what is now called the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). As John pointed out in his article, there has been a rather large increase lately in people being given an Autism diagnosis, that only a decade or so in the past would not have received one. Reasons given for this by so called professionals, or as I like to say prompted by “The Narrator”, is because many conditions that received an alternate terminology have been grouped together to form this larger spectrum that is ASD, which is fair enough I suppose. But also claims are made that they have learnt so much more about the condition, they are just so much better at recognising it and making interventions. This is quite the point of contention.

Presently ASD can be broadly split into two camps. The far less severe camp, where many people, buoyed on by quite a lot of "celebrity" involvement and endorsement, claim that they are just Neuro-Divergent, they say Autism is "my gift", "it's my superpower". They advocate against cures or treatments for Autism, as they believe this superpower of theirs does not need a cure, nor should it even be considered a disorder. I myself am not exactly sure whether it could, or should be described as a power, let alone a superpower. Nor do I know how this power manifests or is used to any effect by the claimant. Should you ever push the claimant to provide a precise answer with any sensible meaning to this, you will quite swiftly be in receipt of your own label, a derogatory one of course, and you’ll find the conversation breaks down rather rapidly. Certainly with current metrics we use today to measure ability, there doesn’t seem to be an abundance of these superpowered individuals topping the charts. That could simply be down to outdated metrics, or perhaps they just need to be given more time and opportunity to come to the forefront.

Then there is the camp where the condition is much more severe, and they view the first camp with utter disdain, relaying how their child is suffering on a daily basis, and they themselves are suffering on a daily basis struggling to cope with the care of the child, heartbroken at witnessing how their child suffers. They say it's not a gift or a superpower, and if they had to cut off their own legs in order for a cure to be found for their loved one suffering, they'd do so in a heartbeat. I can fully empathize with that. Should a new wonder cure ever be proclaimed any time soon, caution should be advised, as anguish is typically one of the heartstrings plucked to gently nudge, or coerce those towards experimental treatment. As hard as it may be, one should try and remove the emotion from any decision making and ask yourself, do you really want to be the person first in line?

Currently there is no cure.

Wikipedia cites both the NHS and Autism.org.uk stating that "curing or otherwise treating Autism may not be an appropriate goal". Tell that to the members of Camp Two.
 
Again taken directly from Wikipedia, "Autistic people may be prescribed medication to manage specific co-occurring conditions or behaviours" not actually prescribed for Autism itself. "More than half of Autistic children in the United States are prescribed psychoactive drugs or anticonvulsants. Commonly used drug classes include antidepressants, stimulants, and antipsychotics".

This brings me to the first substantial exhibit.

Here a debate is had, titled "Psychiatrists and the Pharma Industry are to Blame for the Current ‘Epidemic’ of Mental Disorders".(3)
 
In this debate you will see the panel for the motion, which includes Psychoanalyst Darian Leader, in my opinion, give quite compelling evidence to strongly suggest that indeed Psychiatrists, at least some of them, and the Pharma industry may very well have a lot to answer for. (Spoiler alert) Unfortunately I believe that the audience who were voting on the motion may have been a tad biased, and quite possibly swayed by their dislike of Mr Will Self, who also in my opinion, could perhaps have formulated his arguments a little better. He was quite clearly emotional - that much is evident. Also in this debate please note the mentions of the DSM.

Today, generally the criteria to satisfy a diagnosis of Autism is governed by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The ICD came first in 1893, first under the original name of the International Classification of Causes of Death before being changed in revision number six in 1948 to it's current name when the World Health Organisation assumed responsibility for it's publication. The DSM began in 1952 evolving from psychiatric hospital statistics, as well as from a United States Army manual. It's rather interesting that the DSM would evolve from a military manual and again the dates are important. Both the ICD and the DSM are updated regularly after what used to be a cycle of roughly 5-10 years, to more frequent revisions happening in more modern times. The ICD is broader in scope than the DSM and there are some other differences related specifically to Autism, but these differences are quite negligible and mostly arbitrary, with both manuals tending to mirror each other closely. If one were to look here at the Wikipedia page and follow the citations, it goes into detail specifically about the many criticisms that the DSM has received.(4)

Cue the next exhibit here. (5) You will see Psychotherapist Dr James Davies give a very in depth analysis on the history of the DSM. He even managed to speak personally with some of the major people responsible for forming some it’s editions, whilst also touching on the involvement of the Pharma Industry. I consider it one of the best and most important presentations for anyone with any interest in medical studies, in particular with relation to mental health and diagnostics, seeing as both the DSM and ICD are the backbone of criteria for main stream diagnostics. Such a thorough and detailed lecture highlights very serious problems with Psychiatry, Psychology and the Pharmacologic Industry, to the point that one really ought at the very least, to start raising eyebrows at what The Narrator has many people believing. One ought to question their own beliefs on the subjects, and ask yourself, what do you really actually know?

In this exhibit here  for The British Psychological Society, the Psychiatrist, Psychotherapist and Author Professor Sami Timimi presents his own compelling argument, stating that Autism is a social construct and does not even exist at all.(6) He questions the benefits of assigning labels and ponders whether these labels could be adverse instead. Timimi outlines that symptoms of Autism need not be pathologized, and the way in which they are pathologized does not happen with any other type of physical condition, disease, illness or abnormality, resulting in a contradiction to integral and robust scientific method. He presents that currently there is no possible way to be able to positively confirm the validity of a diagnosis, there are no blood tests, there are no genetic markers, no clear indications from neural imaging, there is absolutely no empirical or scientific evidence for Autism’s existence. Timimi points out that Autism is descriptive rather than explanatory, thus only a fallacy by way of circular reasoning remains. Here he presents the same argument expanded with additional history and context for the Third Systemic Autism Conference.(7)

So what does that mean for anybody that has an Autism diagnosis?

I would suggest that what these Doctors and Professors are alluding to, is that if we take the overly simplistic division of the two camps mentioned earlier. Those in Camp One are so ambiguous in their presentation that they can almost be completely dismissed as not having anything wrong with them at all, outside of what can easily be described as just a difference in personality, with any presenting symptoms to suggest more serious problems that might be reported or otherwise observed being a result of Iatrogenesis, brought on by different factors including but not limited to medications, and exasperated by receiving a label, or diagnosis as it's currently called. They are positing that receiving these labels whilst anecdotally bringing comfort and relief to some, can more often that not cause more harm than good. It could even be considered as a form of Munchausen syndrome, by self or by proxy.
Receiving some sort of diagnosis or "label" has become fashionable, marketable and thus profitable, helped along rapidly by celebrity endorsement especially in the USA, but now spreading at pace to the rest of the world, where some people seem very eager to receive their own label and using this label as some sort of "get out of jail free card" to excuse what would otherwise be considered inexcusable societal behaviour. Certainly in these cases, labels such as grandiose, narcissist, even sociopath could just as easily fit the bill. Interestingly enough, another controversy over the DSM erupted when the committee on personality disorders for the 5th Edition recommended the removal of Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the manual.

However, by contrast, labels related to neuro-divergence are not allowed to be challenged nor allowed to receive any doubts or criticism even from any other medical experts, but rather the person presenting it is supposed to be confirmed, accommodated, congratulated, and heralded as a role-model that's helping and inspiring all those others out there that are “different” or struggling too. Proudly declaring, often with the case of celebrities and influencers very publicly, that they are “neuro-divergent”, meaning their neurological function is not typical, not normal, and normal is boring, it’s ordinary, meaning they are extraordinary, they are gifted, they have a superpower, and that’s something to desire, that’s something to boast about. 

However, in reality, there is no neurological baseline, even with the closest possible genetic similarities, that being a set of twins. In the wider population, one can talk about a neurological average, but averages are a mathematical construct, often not existing in reality. If there is no baseline, it means we are all different, which of course is very true. We are all different. So, if we are all different, does this mean we are all neuro-divergent? If we are all divergent, then the definition itself loses it’s entire meaning. Divergent from what exactly if a baseline does not exist? Certainly we are all neurologically different, and this difference can indeed be described as a spectrum, but for what purpose and to what end? It would mean that the entire population is on “The Spectrum”, in which case assigning a label to every individual would only add to the ever increasing confusion on the topic. There was, and is, no need to rebrand the old-fashioned label we used to have for explaining that everyone is different, which was the very plain and boring label of “normality”. Being different is normal, no two people are the same, similar maybe, but never the same.

For those in Camp Two, there is no question that there is some severe underlying condition or disorder as the symptoms presented are very apparent. The medical profession could make improvements by reducing the spectrum significantly to only include the more severe cases, or perhaps by giving these more severe cases a new name. Whilst initially this could possibly be confusing, it could actually prove to be beneficial too, as Autism has become diluted to the point that it’s detracting from people that genuinely suffer. The label "Autism" from it's conception to present day throughout any of its iterations in history is insufficient as a diagnosis, as again it offers nothing more than a label due to the fact that there are no existing tests which can confirm the presence of "Autism". Nor does it offer any solution, as there is no effective medication or cure to be had. Rather than receiving a diagnosis of Autism and doctors saying, "well sorry, here's some pills that we know won't change anything, and that's it from us, nothing more we can do, no more investigation necessary", I would suggest investigation is indeed necessary, as the possibility remains that the symptoms are caused by another underlying condition, one that could be tested for, one in which a cure might be found, one in which symptoms mirror those that we currently associate with Autism and perhaps have been misdiagnosed as such.

The criteria has indeed widened to include many more individuals, but the criteria being far too wide is something that many professionals in the field have been vocal about for some time. But like John has found with mentioning MMR vaccine and Autism in the same breath, should you question The Narrator about anything, you will find yourself possibly losing your job, being derogatorily labelled, ridiculed, demonised, de-platformed, funding removed or flat out ignored, which results in a reluctance from some to speak their mind or present their case. This is occurring with increasing frequency, and not just on the subject of mental health, but also throughout all other areas of Science.

This idea that you just follow the science sounds good in theory, but when the actual scientists are not doing that themselves, then what is someone with less scientific acumen left to believe? Complaints have been raised about this multiple times by multiple people for decades, by many quite prominent in their field, with subjects such as Physics, History, Archaeology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Pharmacology, Neurology, Epidemiology and many more.

The Grievance Study Affair, taken from the Wikipedia page here.(8)

Related to a group of Authors that in 2017-2018 worked together to purposefully submit bogus papers relating to certain topics that are currently the flavour of choice, to “highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and erosion of standards in several academic fields”. Four of the papers were published, others were considered. I won’t even mention what the titles of these papers are, you can view them yourself. Interestingly, some of the criticism levelled at the hoax included; From Daniel Engber, “we know from long experience that expert peer review offers close to no protection against outright data fraud", and from Evolutionary Biologist Carl T. Bergstrom, “peer review is not designed to remove fraud or even absurd ideas”. To me that sounds more like affirmation of the groups initial analysis rather than criticism. Indeed peer review is another topic that is receiving more and more complaints of late, and perhaps rightly so.

As another example of problems in Science, Here is Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder detailing how she lost her affiliation with Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy due to her speaking freely on certain topics that The Narrator doesn't currently agree with.(9) Sabine has spoken out many times about the issues regarding "The Science" including fake papers and scams (10 )that are occurring in order to artificially increase citations and here she mentions how this problem is spreading.(11)

She along with other scientists have been smeared for speaking out about the incidences of gatekeeping, bullying, attempts at de-platforming and otherwise demonising anyone that doesn’t toe the narrative line, regardless of whether their science is actually sound. Lets not forget all the prominent scientists involved with the Great Barrington Declaration. Doesn’t it seem absurd that anybody who claims to be so certain in their own scientific beliefs or otherwise, would find it necessary to try and completely shut down and dismiss any alternative discourse or evidence to the contrary? Science is supposed to consider evidence, and make appropriate changes whenever new evidence suggests it should. Science is not supposed to censor, nor is it supposed to be reflexively dismissive.

Does the MMR vaccine have any causal links with Autism?

I don't know. But the point is, neither do majority of the people that instantly dismiss a link between the two. If such a thing as Autism actually exists, and anyone has any credible evidence or research to show a link between MMR vaccines and Autism, I believe it should be considered and held up to the correct honest scientific scrutiny rather than being dismissed summarily. The scientific community are much harder to sway from certain ideas than many people realise. Even when evidence is presented, the task will increase with exponential difficulty when there is no evidence at all. It can happen in reality that something is true or exists without there being any available proof. The trouble here is when one tries to convince another of what is true without that proof or evidence, at the very least you would need to have a structurally sound theory as a solid foundation to build upon. Perhaps if John writes another article on the MMR vaccine he can include citations of any research he has come across. As it's his belief, I'll let him make the argument.

I will agree with John in that I believe one should always have the freedom of choice to decide whether they wish to refuse vaccinations or other treatments. As history has shown, for that matter very recent history, it’s not too inconceivable that in the very near future, the choice a person has of receiving or refusing any medical intervention will be removed entirely from them. As recently as year 2020, some quite vocally and actively called for forced vaccinations. Although as far as I’m aware, no physical force was used in the “western world”, that’s not to say it wasn’t under consideration. There were other methods aside from physical force that were used, involving a highly aggressive campaign adopting alternate forms of manipulation, which some say not only went against the principal of informed consent, but shattered the boundaries. Calls for vaccine passports were made, and these passports are still very much on the agenda. This has the real possibility to widen in scope. As we can see with Autism how the criteria increased to include ever more individuals, what’s not to say that a central authority some day might decide that any citizen they choose, in particular those that don’t comply with the central authority, are not actually rebellious by conscious free thought alone, but rather they have an illness, a condition, one that requires intervention, a cure, a cure that the central authority can readily supply freely to all, and will do so by any means necessary. How many people in the last 41 years are now starting to believe 2+2=5? Are we in, or entering into, a time where perhaps we’ll see regular scheduled flights over the cuckoo’s nest, and as a result be faced with ever increasing medical authoritarianism? Signs are there. And on that note, for anyone interested in a segway that still holds some relevance to topics discussed in this article, have a look at Ken Kesey, a man with a fascinating history, who believed that society often pushes out those who do not fit the conventional ideas of how society expects them to act or behave.(12) These unconventionals were then labelled insane and committed to Psychiatric units. As I mentioned earlier, the dates are important.

Does Autism actually exist?

Quite possibly, but as I have hopefully shown in this article, there are also compelling arguments suggesting it’s very possible that it does not, the idea was not as ridiculous as it may have first seemed. Regardless of what opinions I may or may not hold, the truth is, I don’t know. I also think that “I don’t know” can often be a better place to start than “I believe”.

What I do know, is that Science, and Academia in general are proven to have serious problems. From paper mills producing scam papers to outright organised fraud. Experiments, studies, tests and research are not always adhering to the robust scientific method they should, with results being manipulated to purposefully favour any given hypothesis, cherry picking data, and disregarding results that don’t fit the desired conclusion. Peer review is not the sufficient safeguard that we’re led to believe. Incidences of gatekeeping, bullying, defamation, character assassination, and smear campaigns are rife. Regarding the Pharma industry, it seems that the snake-oil salesmen of old didn't disappear, they rebranded and went from strength to strength dominating an industry that turns over staggering amounts of yearly profits to the tune of hundred of billions, prioritising these profits over all else. Building up a positive reputation by acquiring the rights and patents of some successful products, in doing so they managed to repeatedly slip in harmful wares into their stock, often going undiscovered for dangerously long periods of time. When they are caught out, the disproportionally low fines they receive have no effect on the deep pockets of their shareholders, the mud doesn’t stick, their reputation goes untarnished and they’re able to repeat without so much as a wash and a rinse. I encourage people not to dismiss out of hand any theory that contradicts the narrative, nor to resort to immediate insult towards those presenting such theories. Equating the narrative to unquestionable truth is a dangerous precedent to set, it’s just not science. In any case, the insults are more likely to result in those doubling down on their beliefs instead of seeking to know, they become more susceptible to unfounded fringe elements and unable to separate themselves from observation bias and confirmation bias, especially those that aren’t as scientifically astute. Rather it’s much better to hear out the arguments on both sides and do your own thorough research to the best of your ability. Making a steelman argument for the contrasting views is a good place to start.

The very real possibility remains that perhaps soon in the near future, your ability to rely on the internet as a resource for research could rapidly decline. Should you type a vague question regarding the topics discussed here into the search engine of your choice, or if you were to ask an AI search assistant of your choice as to whether Autism exists, you will most likely only find an answer that fits the current narrative, and other view points will be dismissed as either pseudoscience, or claimed that no such contradictory view points are available. The algorithms are dominating more and more of our lives, claiming to show you more of what you want to see, but in reality, they are showing you more of what someone else wants you to see. Restrictions on access to the internet are coming into force and there are even strong claims and evidence to suggest that certain articles are actively being edited or removed from the internet completely. With the “facts” being checked, who is checking the fact-checkers?

As an extra little titbit back to the topic of Autism. Many people still associate Autism with the film Rain Man, which starred Dustin Hoffman playing the "Autistic Savant" character named Raymond Babbitt. The character was said to be inspired by Kim Peek who, like Case One Donald Triplett, was a real life Savant. Although Peek had received a diagnosis for Autism, this was later believed to be incorrect, and an alternative diagnosis of FG Syndrome was posited. Savants are capable of such incredible feats that they could be said to almost rival a computer even by today's standards. Savant Syndrome is not synonymous with Autism but rather a separate condition that can co-exist. It is estimated that between 0.5% and 10% of those with Autism have some form of savant abilities. As far as the 5th edition of the DSM, Savant syndrome in not recognised as a mental disorder. Due to the extraordinary capabilities of savants it comes as no surprise to hear, that some people are actively seeking to acquire such talents. Cue more human experimentation.

It is said that; “Savant syndrome has been artificially replicated using low-frequency trans-cranial magnetic stimulation to temporarily disable this area of the brain” (This area being the temporal lobe). In an article here on the National Library for Biotechnology Information, an argument is put forward that "savant skills are latent in us all", and seeks "to explore the possibility of artificially inducing such skills in healthy, normal individuals".(13)

Isn't that fascinating? Manipulating the brain with magnets can induce Savant abilities, on "healthy normal individuals", whatever healthy and normal is these days, yes very fascinating indeed. But that's not all magnets can do. According to this study here listed on the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),(14) and this abstract snippet from Cambridge University, using magnets on the brain can even switch off empathy in individuals.(15) One wonders whether these experiments would pique the interest of the military or intelligence agencies? I’m not sure, perhaps not. It’s not like they’ve ever shown any interest or had any involvement in the past regarding a desire to bolster their ranks with individuals possessing increased ability coupled with a lack of empathy. Did I mention Ken Kesey already? He really did have a fascinating history.

Speaking of empathy, and continuing the theme of Autism for that matter, did you know that the IDF, yes that IDF, have a “program designed to train young Autistic adults who want to volunteer for service in the IDF”? And that they are “taught professions for which they have a comparative advantage”?

Ro’im Rachok was founded in 2013 by two Mossad veterans who realized that certain individuals on the Autism spectrum could be unusually skilled at spending long hours analysing aerial reconnaissance photographs and picking out tiny details. In addition to its military benefits, there are social benefits to the program. 

Great stuff, and obviously nothing nefarious here, as there never is when military programs are involved with considerably vulnerable individuals. I mean, it sounds very noble, and a great way to help these individuals gain the support and skills they need to succeed in life where otherwise they might have been excluded. There is absolutely zero evidence that I have came across to suggest, that individuals identified under current criteria as having Autism, have ever been inducted into the military and experimented on with magnets to the brain, with the intention to research and attempt to artificially induce Savant Syndrome, inadvertently using the same magnetic technology to remove empathy from decision making, no evidence at all, not yet anyway, but make of it what you will. Besides, according to this on the Science.org website, scientists have also discovered that they can use magnets to remove people’s belief in God and actually make them less biased towards immigrants.(16)
 
Yes well, all that messing about with magnets to the brain does seem rather confusing. Obviously the IDF and the powers that be in Israel certainly believe in God, they’re well known for their abundance of empathy and they sure love immigration.

Using magnets to remove empathy from human decision making, what will they think of next? I can only imagine what affect this might have on people who would already struggle to orienteer and navigate themselves using a moral compass, or on those that don’t even possess one.
From the simple discovery of the attraction of ferrous metals to each other, to sticking notes to the refrigerator, the electric motor, MRI scans, phone networks and signals, to now even removing empathy from an individual, our uses of electro-magnetism have certainly increased to produce many miraculous marvels of the modern age. But that’s a whole other spectrum.

In closing, the points I have discussed in this article have many threads to pull on. It is a rabbit hole as they say and the warren is huge. I would highly recommend you go down it. I have only rather briefly touched upon the topic of Autism, and although the links I have provided do contain hours worth of a combination of written and video information, there is so very much more to it, with each point really deserving it’s own dedicated article. I admit that how I have presented this is rather rough and unpolished, it was thrashed together in haste rather clumsily and I apologise in advance for my lack of writing experience. I hope with practice I can improve.

I have not written this with any intentions of offending anybody, nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything other than to highlight the relevance and importance of ethical rigorous scientific method, free speech and open debate, whilst also encouraging open-minded and respectful discourse. Whilst presenting factual information that some may perceive as being shaded with light conspiratorial overtones, at the very least I hope I have provided a little food for thought.

🔴The following are the sources and citations intended as hyperlinks throughout the article]

1. Time For Trump To Rekindle Debate On MMR And Autism




⏩Matt Bowen is a researcher and commentator.

Autism And The MMR Vaccine

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)