What is 'open hearted science'? Plus top experts speak on why so much modern science is bogus.

    ura soul
    by
    What is 'open hearted science'? Plus top experts speak on why so much modern science is bogus.

    The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

    - Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

    It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. 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

    - Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

    The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.

    – Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal.

    Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.

    - Linus Pauling, Ph.D, two-time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry and one of the founders of 'quantum chemistry' and molecular biology'. He was invited to be in charge of the chemistry division of the Manhattan Project but refused.

    This issue is one of the most important topics on Earth presently

    Science is a great process when it is allowed to be performed with integrity and balance. It is the greatness of the results and intentions of honest science that has lifted it to a place of respect in society, but with such a position comes the threat of manipulation and corruption. There have long been many on earth who intend to deceive and imbalance as much as they can and they will target ANY source of power to attempt to control and dominate others by its use. Those who dedicate their life to honest scientific study often come to realise just how big a problem science faces from corrupt individuals and groups - as the quotes above demonstrate... But what about everyone else? There are far too many people who are treating science as a RELIGION (of all things) - holding up the holy books of scientific journals and denouncing the heretics (non beLIEvers) who refuse to accept their version of scientific dogma. I feel that many of these ones would have been happy in actual religions, deceiving and controlling others - but they realised that science offers an even more powerful option than religion since it carries with it an air of proven and backed up weight that religious claims often do not.

    When the majority of us are trained to have faith in the system of science and allow our thoughts and actions to be adjusted by what we perceive to be truth gained from scientific enquiry - yet the majority also do not take the time to question the validity of the claims being made and lack the depth of understanding to know what is real and what is not - we face the very real problem of taking a tool of liberation and using it to create yet more traps and dangers that could have been avoided if we just stopped reLIE-ing on others to think FOR us.

    The propagandists include people you may meet online and in daily life, not just in universities and private or government labs

    I have found that during my interactions on social networks that there is often a curious pattern to be found whenever controversial issues are discussed that may involve scientific studies. Often, there will be a small group (or even a larger group in some cases) of individuals who attempt to combine personal insult/attack with the claim that the scientific studies that they support are the only possible truth on the subject and that anyone who disagrees is a * insert ad hominem verbal insult/attack here *. The huge irony is that they will often attempt to deflect any criticism by creating false statements about their opponent (setting up a 'straw man' and then attacking the bogus target in an attempt to 'look good' and 'win') and then even go on to say that their opponent 'obviously doesn't understand science' or other similar statements that are unproven but which sound good in their own mind.

    The scientific method IS science and anyone who has used the scientific process in a practical way to engineer 'things' or 'products' knows very well that there is no space for personal attack, ridicule or anything much other than allowing an unbiased understanding of the situation to be found and to then use the understandings gained to produce an effective end result. To claim that someone is unscientific while also verbally insulting them and denouncing whatever they say without even exploring the details, is a massive red flag that the actor is in huge denial and that their claims are most appropriately identified as describing THEM and possibly not their target. As the famous phrase goes "we see the world not as it is, but as we are" - though i will add to that the understanding that we do see the world as it is once our denial ends. The fact that these ones will often use attacks on emotions/feelings to silence their critics while also attempting to say that it is emotions that are misleading their opponent into error is a vital observation when it comes to understanding their motives and agenda - in short, the overly intellectual tend heavily to reject their own emotions - putting them on a path to psychopathic misalignment.

    The manipulation of science occurs on an industrial scale

    One of the reasons why there is such blatant disregard for correct scientific process is that if we all used it and understood it we would not be easy to manipulate through the propaganda that is endlessly spewed out by mega corporations and governments around the world as they attempt to mould and shape US to THEIR agenda - ignoring whether it is truly what is needed for us. If we truly understand the scientific process and truly understand that many, many humans are using bluff and deception to get us to think that their science is the right science - then not only will their power games come to an end, but the majority of us will finally be closer to knowing that the majority of what we have been taught to beLIEve about the world, the universe and everything has been carefully manipulated and twisted in order to disempower us and to create artificial power hierarchies for the gain of a very small number of individuals. When a small number of corporate board rooms has combined a vast array of corporate and special interest groups into one power pyramid it is not so difficult to warp the textbooks, mass media and even classrooms of most of the planet into an Orwellian and blinkered mindset that is easy to dominate and control.

    It is not always clear to me whether those who use troll tactics in the name of 'science' are doing so due to their own willing participation in deception or whether they are embodying so much denial that they actually are unaware of how they are being used in the wider agenda and just who and what they are empowering, all while claiming to be 'voices of authority'. None the less though, it is always possible to understand the errors involved and the broader patterns that are present and that need to be removed/cleared if we are to know true balance and peace.

    Some of my own personal experiences online are not pretty

    In the course of highlighting serious errors in public perception of key scientific issues that relate to health, i have been often thanked and praised, but yet also even had direct death threats and more! While highlighting scientific studies and understanding that contradict the 'establishment' position on the 'safety and effectiveness' of vaccines, for example, i have seen large comment threads on major science websites get shut down as soon as it was realised that what i was saying could not be rebutted and that if it was accepted then the entire vaccine industry would be seen to be based on fraud. It was in that context that i received two death threats by people who claimed that i was 'threatening the children' by putting people off of using vaccines! For anyone wondering why such a heated situation arose, i suggest reviewing the material in the vaccine katalist and listening to the many doctors and researchers spilling the beans on the corruption and bogus 'science' that underpins vaccine logic.

    I have also, after having watched my own mother die from chemotherapy (not from cancer) been told that i don't know what i am talking about with regards chemotherapy (even though i have researched it independently and referred to numerous professional researchers and medical doctors) and that chemotherapy is a great treatment for cancer patients. Amusingly, the claim was made by someone who when pressed for data to back up their claim could only present a scientific study that I myself (and medical doctors) use to demonstrate exactly the opposite! Namely, to demonstrate that chemotherapy is totally ineffective and for our own health it needs to be banned. Even after demonstrating clearly that the paper's details we being denied and misrepresented by the other in the conversation (which i know because i spoke with the paper's author at length on the subject) - the denial continued and every statement that backed up my position was ignored even after i repeatedly pointed the denial out and that my points were being conveniently 'overlooked'. Again, the problem is MASSIVE DENIAL.

    The weaponisation of science: Fake studies are proven to pass the holy 'peer review' process

    James Corbett of the Corbett Report recently published a great (and short) overview of this problem, reminding us of the way that the artificial sweetener aspartame (now rebranded as 'amino-sweet') was blatantly foisted onto humanity by way of bribery and deception, despite it being a highly toxic substance. He also highlights a highly relevant example where researchers deliberately created a false study that claimed that the penis was a 'social construct' among other ideas, which then actually passed the peer review process and was published:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yecefLsE44U

    The awareness of this problem definitely extends to those in industry who benefit

    The following two candid statements are from an Ex Vice President of Pfizer, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical corporations and from a medical research Professor in Denmark respectively. They both openly and clearly state that they are very well aware that the pharmaceutical industry is massively corrupt and deliberately being used as a vehicle to corrupt science for profit, with little or NO care/though given to the actual 'patients' (victims) of the agenda and process.

    Those who operate on blind faith for humanity and our health(s)care systems, take note please:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrCizlAOBAo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dozpAshvtsA

    What is Open Hearted science?

    What has been described above is what i will call 'closed hearted science' - that is to say that the dishonesty that is involved and the lack of courageous integrity all comes back to the individuals involved being limited by the reality that their heart is closed. They will generally completely deny that the heart has any kind of role in thinking and science - they will generally similarly deny the same for intuition and emotional intelligence. These ones will generally show no remorse for the terrible injustice and torture being inflicted on millions of animals in the name of 'science' and they will even continue that carelessness on to the non consensual experimentation on humans too. So with this in mind it is possible to consider what 'open hearted science' can be.

    When a heart is open, the individual is opened also to a variety of deep forms of awareness and connection with the rest of life which provide an unmeasurable amount of information that is not available when the heart is closed. A closed heart infers a closed mind and an open heart comes with an open and receptive mind that is compassionate and that knows how to process information without bias and without resorting to the use of judgement and assumption to fill in the gaps. In short, that which is open hearted will feel good and liberated and that which is closed hearted will not. The kicker is that we need to have a degree of open heartedness just to feel real feelings and to be able to begin to identify the heart state in others.. So it is imperative to learn how to open our hearts in a balanced and lasting way - the alternative is a continuation of the ever worsening betrayal and abuse of life on all levels.

    you can join the community to leave a comment

    comments

      • innerverse
        innerverse

        "To claim that someone is unscientific while also verbally insulting them and denouncing whatever they say without even exploring it, it is a massive red flag that the actor is in huge denial and that their claims are most appropriately identified as describing THEM and possibly not their target."

        Very well written and sourced. I feel the pain of your experience regarding your mother. I am trying to figure out how to help prevent a similar outcome for my family members, who are not diagnosed with cancer as yet but are nearly completely submerged in illusory subsistence and thought models, and with poisoned world views to boot. Your writing brings back to mind our comments over the weekend regarding free will and self control. Would it not be helpful if individuals involved in these institutions began exercising personal choice and internal sovereignty, to choose something different than simply "whatever profits is best?" Of course a totally pure, open heart would always, naturally choose that which is in harmony with all, and I understand the idea that being the "controller" of yourself is potentially self-divisive... but since many people are already internally divided, recognizing that which must be denied is required to prevent further negative outcomes from choices that will seemingly benefit the self but harm the all. To consciously KNOW is to be able to say NO. The word science comes from "scire" which means ‘know.’ What is lacking now is CONscience, which means adds "together" to "know" and what is it that we know? We know what is RIGHT, both morally and factually, is that which does not WRONG, or harm. Knowing right and wrong, we choose. This is the purpose of free will.

        • innerverse
          innerverse

          "The mind no longer seeking to know finds peace! The complete acceptance of life is a complete acceptance of God!"

          There's also this idea.... I'm not sure how to beta test it though. My mind really wants to know things.

          • ura soul
            ura soul

            innerverse - thanks! What i have learned regarding helping others who are trapped by so many incomplete and unloving thought patterns and behaviours is that if their heart is not in 'it' (the change) then no change can or will occur. This means that they need to be emotionally activated (triggered) somehow in order to stimulate the change that is needed for them to come into balance. I personally do not deliberately seek to emotionally trigger others to achieve this unless there is agreement that this is OK. I am though, willing to completely dispense with any kind of social 'nicety' that says i shouldn't share the real horrors of life with people in order to somehow protect them. I have no problem at all with showing photos of the torture chambers and barbarism involved in the meat / dairy industry and i will show them to children too - since it is only the total denial of the subject that causes so many children to gradually lose touch with their childish and innocent love of animals and gradually replace it with heartless indifference. If they know and feel the truth early enough, then they may hold onto that deep connection into adulthood. The same is true with health and illness in general.

            Empowerment is needed though, rather than an onslaught of depressing truths and i feel that nutrition and emotional processing are the absolute keys to this - along with understandings that can be shared through our own ongoing balancing process. It would be really great to create physical spaces where the principles of real balance can be felt and experienced by visitors - such as has been done in a small number of animal sanctuaries i am aware of and a vegan children's home in tanzania. It is unlikely that anyone who visits these places and who can still feel at all will go away unchanged and unmotivated to create healthful change.

            Would it not be helpful if individuals involved in these institutions began exercising personal choice and internal sovereignty, to choose something different than simply "whatever profits is best?"

            Yes, certainly that is part of the solution - however, there is a mixture of emotional and psychological dysfunction involved that ranges from a submissive state that will simply bow down to whoever is thought to be 'above' - through to total psychopathic intent to manipulate and overpower others. Major emotional healing is needed now for all of us and particularly these ones - however, they are unlikely to do so voluntarily until they no longer hold any power over others and thus it falls to those of us outside of the institutions to make the called for changes. Those within the institutions who do wake up are commonly sidelined and even sacked for being a dissenting voice.

            recognizing that which must be denied is required to prevent further negative outcomes from choices that will seemingly benefit the self but harm the all

            Denial is the absence of what is needed and it's correction does not necessary imply that what was denied must be accepted. We can deny giving our acceptance to something that is true and thus deny the truth. We can also deny something problematic the chance to effect us and we can do that in a balanced way - however, it is possible to choose to deny reality in an attempt to make improvements and it is that form of denial that is the major problem. Additionally, this often occurs unconsciously and thus the denier has no awareness of the presence of denial. They may also deny their own denials, making the situation extremely perilous and impossible to change while those denials exists. In other words, when i use the word 'denial' i generally use it to refer to the false belief that an aspect of reality does not exist or is not as it truly is - as opposed to the slightly different meaning where it is perceived that 'something' has been stopped from manifesting and has thus 'been denied'. In the cases where something has been stopped, i generally describe that as a transformation or just a directing of will as opposed to denial.

            There is nothing wrong with rejecting that which does not feel good.

            admin of this community, co-creator of reality & lover of life!
            • SoulFish
              SoulFish

              In understanding Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, one might begin to realize that every system that science proposes is a product of human imagination and has to be accepted with a faith nearly as blind as any religious belief. Much scientific truth proves to be as hypothetical as poetic allegory. The relationship of those rod-connected blue and red balls to an actual atomic structure is about the same as the relationship of Christianity to the Fish or the Lamb.

              Investigations in pure science, in abstract mathematics and theoretical physics, frequently lead one into areas of thought which can only be described as . . . well, metaphysical. The mental processes of religion and pure science may be similar, but the ends are different. It is not the purpose of science to make a man feel whole or to produce a kind of exalted happiness or enlightenment.

              • ura soul
                ura soul

                I value the scientific method as a way of confirming what has been intuited and of a way to share understanding in a repeatably way - so when people claim that science must not involve intuition i just observe how they don't really understand much about the subject of intuition.

                admin of this community, co-creator of reality & lover of life!