A Great Place for All: Transparency #2 (21.7)
2021 Feb 20 (21.7 Transparency #2 of the trilogy)
Welcome to column 21.7, and thanks again for reading, subscribing, and sharing. This article will be the 2nd part of a 3 part trilogy linking politics, health, and technology. Part 1 was column 21.6 and sent on Feb 19, and I am sending this out soon after part 1 as I had a SNAFU with 21.5. I accidentally mailed it again while I was trying to fix a problem with its intermittent availability! I am sorry the confusion. If you go to https://richardferdman.substack.com/ you will see the latest version of the columns (including any new post-publishing edits/ corrections).
Each post is a snapshot of ideas, beliefs, questions, and hopes. The column is part of my quest for a unified world and country that can become a better (make that .. Great) place for all.
In our medical community there are some strange lockdowns and parallels to the political strangulation I mentioned last time. Publishers and sometimes not the scientists are stopping the publication of articles that have received successful peer review. Articles that voice problems with Covid-19 vaccines or its questions about testing or risks have been squelched. These are not conspiracy theories but actual coercions. Those who seek to coerce may say that it is “bad “or “fake” science, but that may not be true:
Bad publications have peer-reviews done only by their favorable friends or the non-critical or likeminded. This is often done to streamline public opinion or to ensure those with investments prosper while demeaning and diminishing nay-sayers.
Yes some publications have no peer review at all and as I have written there are no requirements to log the results from medical trials.
Covid vaccines have been shown to have potential risks. They might be relatively less important for some groups (rather than getting the virus) but that does not justify the lack of transparency.
Yes there is plenty of good science with good analysis and some of it gets published! I do enjoy Science (from AAAS), the Economist weekly, and several other journals and podcasts.
Recent articles from recognized (MIT) scientists showing a link between glyphosate and autism were stopped, a link between statins and autism, covid-19 and vitamin d were stopped and published in lesser journals. Not because of science, but because of fear of angering those in power and those with money. Just because I (or my friends) may not profit from something, that does not mean it is fake news!
Most rational thinkers know the value of a vaccine is its ability to augment the health of each body. I am still amazed that scientists and governments have not spoken loudly on the importance of building immunity by eating well, getting sun (vitamin D), sleeping well, and promoting foods and exercise to enhance your health, thereby building immunity, and enhancing your own ability to fight the virus or other diseases. If you can not build immunity, then clearly stay clear from others and plan to get a vaccine as early as possible.
Decades ago, the science of brain malfunction with lead was shown despite Ethyl Corp’s hiding and distorting the science for 50 years. The tobacco industry tried to usurp reality. Dupont hid the problems with Teflon for 50 years despite the cancers and birth defects. Monsanto has hid the science behind glyphosate. Many mining, energy, and agricultural companies have hid spills of toxic chemicals, and injection of chemicals into the soil, air, and water. As our world has become invaded by EMF (electromagnetic frequencies), fluoride, plastics, pesticides, fertilizers, seemingly innocuous chemicals, and other everyday products, let us make it a good practice to fund and intervene on behalf of our safety, and not on behalf of industry titans or supposed business-men who continue to make money as non-neutral “philanthropists”.
I hope to see a plan and balanced approach for science and its impact while we facilitate management for any product that can help or hinder people, crops, vaccines, and life.
I suggest new products pay into funds to analyze, watch for and report on anomalies, while ensuring a feedback for consumers. This includes chemicals, facial products, vaccines, drugs, pesticides, fertilizers, packaging, foods (sugars, oils, additives, flavorings, colors, stabilizers) and electronics. This down payment can be used to avoid mistakes, get articles peer-reviewed, get things fully / transparently tested and rolled-out to the public. That is fair and good and can be used to minimize litigation while mitigating the adverse impact of products. When we think of the growth in autism and cancers, we don’t have to think too hard about the merit of this.
Some of you may know smart phones are not FTC approved to touch your ear when on the phone and have never been reviewed by the EPA or FDA even though their emissions and those of the networks (5G) have been shown to have ill-effects. I think we all know that we are not going to get rid of smart-phones but perhaps we should remedy the problems found and be transparent as we continually monitor all the elements of our fragile lives. Having worked in the Energy, Paper, Banking, Tech, and Consumer Product industries, I have seen mostly (yeah not all) good things from most people, but the fear, casual responses, and enormous political sway from those with power and money can have unintended and deadly consequences for us.
I am a believer that corporate entities should not be in any way involved in the administration of the bureaus in which they serve. The fox watching over the hen house seems like a bad prescription that avoids transparent fairness between science, financial and corporate interests across the globe. The separation of industry and government is not enough as bribes and kick-backs have been known to occur.
Growing up I presumed the brightest would lead organizations and nations, and of course I have learned that leaders are often anointed by those who have the power, will, money, and seek to avoid the fear and pain of failure/embarrassing exposés. Under several presidential administrations, most senior members of the department of Agriculture have been chosen from well-known Agribusinesses (Biden has re-appointed a Monsanto kingpin). I have noted experts in their fields are rarely chosen from University settings (Deans or Department chairs) for cabinet posts.
My desire is not to promote a “bigger” government but one more involved at the outset (policies and standards and minimizing risks) and in its ongoing watch (auditing, creating schemes to fine/govern and alter behaviors) for business, humans and our livelihoods globally. I do believe Government should be removed from “operating” functions so as to avoid watching itself. I do feel the government should operate some agencies such as the Military, albeit with watchdogs firmly entrenched.
I know this sounded like a bit of a rant, but I am passionate about transparency and fairness with oversight.
My comments about policies and standards and my prior columns, leads me to want to discuss the transparency of our technology aims. That will be coming soon on the ”Transparency” trilogy.
Until next time!
Joyously,
Richard at richardferdman@substack.com
Books and Podcasts inspiring this or referenced within include: Dr. Seneff, Lead, DuPont, Agri-business, US Prisons - Leavenworth, AAAS - Science - expose on clinical trials, Seneff with Mercola, Potential risks with Moderna, Risks of 5G/ EMF
You can choose to become a friend of mine on Goodreads at this link.
All content above is © Richard Ferdman 2021
Please tell your friends!