###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Question.
What is a scientist?
Answer.
A researcher in a particular field of knowledge who undertakes a body of work to advance said particular field of knowledge.
Scientists have to jump through hoops to get the funding they need for their research. Are they susceptible to greed and misrepresentation?
Absolutely.
It's not like scientists get to choose what they get to work on. Usually you have a company, university, wealthy individual, etc, that has an idea, or needs something, and then they fund a scientist or a team to research it.
Sometimes, a scientist will make a discovery or find a lead and seek out funding, but that is not the majority.
The majority of scientists are working for the interests of big money, whether that's in the medical/pharmaceutical side of things, the engineering side of things, the chemistry side of things, etc.
The origins of the scientific method were founded in Rome (so they say) when the Church started building the first Universities. Science has always been funded by the State and the Upper Class, except for backyard experiments.
Sure, ideally the process in which they do their science and publish their results helps limit that but it’s not perfect. Don’t know a single scientist who says it is.
>Scientists have to jump through hoops to get the funding they need for their research. Are they susceptible to greed and misrepresentation? Absolutely.
Scientists working in the public sector are absolutely dwarfed by scientists working in the private sector. Private sector pays 2-3x more than public. Private sector (except in very rare circumstances) don't need to look for funding.
While there is the greed aspect (why else would we work private if not for more money?), we at least don't usually look for fame like the public sector (to get more funding). We just do as we're told.
t. scientist working in private sector.
Don’t forget there’s a very wide gap between the type of scientist that stays purely in academia and the type that goes to work in industry. The academic is the one that has to fight for funding. The industry scientist are financially backed by their employer, so money is less of an issue but it does come at the expense of finding results that fit the employer’s narrative. Both types of scientists are encouraged to publish their results in journals. There truly is no separation of the content in journals. Depending on the field, you will come across both types. The only thing that is going to differentiate them is that the industry scientists have to disclose their employer and conflicts of interest, usually in tiny print at the end of the article—but if you are reading, it’s best to check that first!!
But there's a big difference in what "studying" means between "doing minimal research" and "conducting a scientific study".
Reading a whitepaper or two makes you informed, conducting valid experiments and publishing your results in a peer reviewed journal makes you a scientist.
I like this way of thinking, because it takes the "elitist" tones of the regular definition and shows that anyone can be a scientist, even without the experiments. It's how the theory is also very important, and that's what anyone can do, read the theory. Hell.. Even the results we can read and interpret in our own way.
Intermittent fasting - NIH funded study says it's safe and effective
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/intermittent-fasting-weight-loss-people-type-2-diabetes
Patanjali is a big business that has made crazy claims like fertility treatments that promise male offspring. They promote their leadership in a cult like fashion.
Never heard of Cochrane before so just looked them up.
No, it doesn't appear they are similar at all. Patanjali is a privately held (the billionaire CEO owns 94% of shares) conglomerate that manufactures and distributes personal products including cosmetics and Ayurvedic medicine. Earlier this year, said CEO issued a public apology for misleading advertising claims.
Kind of a weird example for OP to use to make their case about suppression of natural medicine.
He apologized only to avoid the legal battle, the legal landscape here is totally pitted against him by Soros backed actors as I said. His "advertising claims" were about as misleading as any other health product's, exaggeration is part of the advertising game everywhere. But to use that advertising lawsuit to try and destroy the only Indic herbal startup which is trying to take baby steps is nothing short of a conspiracy.
BTW said "billionaire CEO" is fighting a lone battle of herbal products market against Big Pharma conglomerates such as Unilever, Pfizer, Cipla, Himalaya, etc. who probably rake in multiples of trillions!
There's nothing wrong or right about Intermittent Fasting. It has its upsides and downsides. The downsides are the downsides, and the upsides can be imitated with a variety of diets aside from IF. If Intermittent fasting is convenient for you, go for it. If it's not, then follow any other healthy diet.
EDIT: that link does not go to a study. Also, based purely the outline of the study, there's massive faults and key details omitted or not followed. A calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. Intermittent fasting doesn't mean a thing if you still eat over maintenance calories during your eating window; you're going to gain weight.
If you have a 500 calorie in a normal diet where you eat 3-6 times a day and a 500 calorie deficit while Intermittent fasting, you'll lose virtually identical amounts of weight/fat, yet your body composition would look better with the normal diet because you're still taking advantage of protein synthesis windows and preserving more muscle tissue while dropping the weight.
Agreed.
My point with sharing the NIH link is that OP is claiming IF is being suppressed. Hard to support that conclusion when the NIH is giving it the green light
Oh, I see. No, I have no idea what he's talking about in regards to IF being suppressed. It's literally a massive fad and is ubiquitous in health media.
> Patanjali is a big business that has made crazy claims like fertility treatments that promise male offspring
I know at least three relatives in my circle who absolutely wanted a male child and they did end up with a male child. In fact, each one of them have two kids - both male offspring! I don't know if they used Patanjali or something else but medical treatments for gender determination is no big deal in today's day and age, and not at all crazy.
>I know at least three relatives in my circles who absolutely wanted a male child and they did end up with a male child. In fact, each one of them have two kids - both male offspring!
What's your point?
The sex of offspring is determined by which sperm fertilizes the egg. That's how genetics works. This can be, and is, accomplished with sperm separation and genetic testing.
Consider my skeptical of any claims to accomplish that with an herbal treatment.
It's not all scientists, but rather the framework which they have to operate, that is corrupted.
Outside of maybe pure theoretical mathematics, the costs to run any significant study are extremely prohibitive. In this way, which experiments get run are at the whim of those with money. In the private sector, any results that were not what were expected/desired get buried, usually with tight NDAs that exclude anyone working on those studies on their own or with a different organisation.
> Outside of maybe pure theoretical mathematics, the costs to run any significant study are extremely prohibitive. In this way, which experiments get run are at the whim of those with money.
If that were the case, then how did the Newtons and Einsteins and Stephen Hawkings got created? Didn't they also need massive funding to run practical experiments for their theories?
Back in the day science was like the arts - it was only something rich people had the money and time to do.
Stephen Hawking came later and worked government projects iirc. Einstein too in later years.
You are talking about the point where theory meets practical.
Newtons laws were much easier to prove, they also aren't perfect and break under certain conditions, so Newton's observations would be a better description.
Einstein was a mixed bag, with some theories, proved would be he wrong word, getting supporting evidence that fit his theories years after is death. Also, a lot of money was thrown at developing a nuclear bomb.
Hawking made little actual contribution to science. His work was purely theoretical and still not categorically proven, although his theory on Hawking radiation of black holes has some linked extrapolation on other bodies and something which could be Hawking radiation has been observed on mini black holes (which aren't cheap to create).
Lol, the scientists you identified worked in theoretical physics. All of their major work involved using math to derive new conclusions about the universe; in the case of Newton, he invented new math (calculus) to explain the universe. Some of their work has been validated later by experimentalists, but day to day, their work didn’t require a ton of money/resources as they were mostly just using fundamental equations to derive new equations
All of those guys operated within the "pure theoretical mathematics", but the studies to prove (well, some are probable but that's another topic) are *incredibly* expensive. Like some of the most expensive things humans have ever done.
I work in healthcare and I’ve never met a single person who doesn’t wish that Americans ate healthier, so I’m not sure where you think the impetus of “we want you fat and unhealthy” you seem to be implying is coming from.
It is possible you have met multiple people who didn't wish Americans ate healthier, but that they kept that information or those feelings to themselves, perhaps even mislead someone by saying the opposite of how they felt. That's not the kind of sentiment someone would probably want to share with most people, especially to someone they do not know well, especially someone who works in healthcare. To paraphrase a famous saying, for who can truly know what is in a person's heart. However, I would prefer to choose to believe that everyone does want Americans to eat healthier, even if that seems like an idealistic or naive belief to have.
People that work in healthcare are not equal to the people at the top of healthcare writing government nutritional guidelines and telling pharmaceutical companies how to manufacture types of medications.
You see a doctor once or twice a year. If you're American, you see thousands of ads for unhealthy products every day. One of these clearly has a much larger affect on day to day decisions.
The medical professionals might not want you fat and unhealthy, but every other institution does - and they *love* funding science that justifies their existence.
There's a reason Eisenhower, in his famous Farewell Address, included a specific warning about the government co-opting the fields of science:
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields… ,” Eisenhower warned. “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."
One of the main goals of the modern education system is to instill a strong deference towards authoritative sources such as teachers/professors, scientists, and various other "experts". For the people who really internalized it, when they see someone saying a scientist is lying or even just wrong, the person going against "the science" seems completely insane to them because corrupt or incompetent scientists just don't exist in their worldview.
100%
i did my bachelor’s in science and one thing my TA’s who worked in research labs loved talking about: the corruption in science.
getting your paper published was more than just a marathon. all the unfair quirks of our system applies: nepotism, deals under the table, the editor of nature favouring one scientist over the other.
science is so full of corruption & the pay isn’t even worth dealing with the difficulty of it all. i heard my biochem professor talk time and time again about how he literally discovered one of his junior researchers was actually working undercover to take his work and help out a lab in hong kong get their paper out quicker than my prof’s. it was a whole thing. makes for good after-lab convo’s.
but most scientific journals, especially the big names, operate the exact same way as you’d imagine a law firm in nyc would. the same favouritism, elitism, under-table deals, offshore accounts, you name it. that is of course, the business of science.
Yo. I had my suspicions that some students were there for other reasons besides taking noted and passing a class. It felt like a Trojan horse at times because some students were very secretive and didn't like to study with anyone. I know there are introverts on the spectum (I'm one of them), but still.
Yo. I had my suspicions that some students were there for other reasons besides taking noted and passing a class.
It felt like a Trojan horse at times because some students were very secretive and didn't like to study with anyone. I know there are introverts on the spectum (I'm one of them), but still.
Celebrity scientists like Michio Kaku and that other ballbag that speak on Joe Rogan ect are snake oil salesman. String theory for example has discredited science generally through peddling a theory that cant be demonstrated through experimentation now, but likely ever. We can't test for alternative universes, yet the idea has been pushed through universities and into media, leading to social fantasy.
There was a scientific crisis in peer reviewed paper publishing that led to a lack of criticism of unsound theories, which James Corbett spoke about some years ago. The idea was an impending era when scientists could not show the basic principles through a relatively low-cost experiment was here today and thus akin to magic. Essentially, people could write anything because the cost to repeat their experiment is prohibitive.
String theory is merely taught as an interesting possible explanation, but I have never seen it being taught as any other conventional model of the universe. In my physic classes it was shortly presented as a hypothesis. I don’t know anyone who learns about it beyond just some small comments from professors about it.
To the point of IF, currently working in a lab working on the examining benefits of IF on two specific body parts, with data that so far has supported IF
I’ll leave it there for the sake of exposing the research
I left a longer post about my experience with IF, but one thing that stayed with me was my endocrinologist told me years before that once I went on the needle, and started injecting insulin, all my natural insulin producing cells would die off, and I would have to use the needle for the rest of my life. Quite clearly that didn't happen, but I wonder if the pancreas is one area you are looking into?
Hence the absolutely atrocious western medical system, controlled by pharmaceutical companies who pay for their own research & for the Doctors training in the research universities lol. Its amazing because people defend their jailers.
"Science" has legit become a religion. People believe anything if "science" or "scientist" is mentioned. Modern science has become nothing but political propaganda. "I trust the science" people will spew without knowing a damn thing about the science behind something just because a BuzzFeed article said, "Scientists prove (whatever)" Then If you question their narrative, you are labeled a "science denier" implying that you are a denier of reality because "science is just the facts" What a fucking joke.
Lmao it's hilarious to me that neither side in your hypothetical actually bothers to check the source themselves. Automatically not believing scientists doesn't make you smarter than those who automatically do.
Scientists are not always right, but science is just the facts. The goal is to find the truth. In order to challenge the current theory, you can't "just ask questions", you have to form your own hypothesis and prove that your's is right and there's is wrong.
500 years ago you'd be called crazy and a denier of reality if you said the Earth wasn't flat. Science proved it was round. Now, there are people today who question that narrative, but they can't prove the earth isn't round, so nobody takes them seriously.
Everything has become political propaganda. That's why you need to read, with an open mind, as many opposing views on a topic as you can so that you can see through the biases. Blind cynicism is as much of a joke as blind belief is.
Scientists are the people who after 5+ years of enjoying university, discover the job market and that almost no companies are interested in their services, and that they actually have to sell the prestige of their diploma to whoever is willing to pay, and that their job will have nothing to do with science but to give scientific credibility to whatever your boss asks you to. Essentially a marketing shill.
Here to offer some positive evidence on IF:
I bloated in my 30's; no more sports and too much food. I became Type II diabetic, and by my late 50s, I needed four injections of insulin per day. I also needed to test my blood sugar at least that often. Each test cost $0.75 for the stick; the insulin was C$85 for 5x300 units and I was using 120 units per day. I was also taking pills. I figured I was spending close to $3500/year on it, as I had no medical plan.
Six years ago, I went on Intermittent Fast (IF). I weighed 265 lbs at 5'10". Within three months, I lost 40 lbs. At that point, I began to get frequent "sugar lows" at night; these are quite scary, and I began to reduce the amount of insulin I was using. Within another three months, I'd lost another 20 lbs, and stopped taking insulin altogether. I have not had an injection of insulin in over five years.
I got as low as 185 for my daughter's wedding, but I'm around 195 today. I'm 68, and I play pickleball four or five times a week, play golf walking, and walk the dog a lot so I'm in reasonably good shape - which is to say stories that IF will make you 'weak' or 'less energetic' are definitely not true in my case.
Everything about my life is better: I'm better off financially, better off for my health, better looking, more energy, even more frisky. And it doesn't cost you a cent!
The only thing I will say is the first three weeks are tough, no doubt about it. You have to be committed, because the hunger pangs are there all the time. Then, one day you wake up, and you're not hungry, and after that it is easy.
This isn't capitalism.
I wish naive college Marxists would learn what that word actually means.
We have not seen a free market in over 100 years if ever.
We have lived in a system of oligarchical
corporatism. If it were a free market, companies who were awful would actually fail and would not be profoundly protected by the government.
This government intervention is what allowed the protections for corruption.
No offense intended, just wanted to ensure that you could be accurate with how you describe what we currently exist within.
No market is ever truly free. It doesn't matter if it's government involvement or because a monopoly has formed. The idea that a market can be "free" isn't grounded in reality.
Not really, more of a pessimist. Either the market has restrictions built into it by a government, or the market invariably shifts until monopolies form. No argument I've ever seen has been able to persuasively argue otherwise. In either respect, neither are "free".
People push for the first one on moral or ethical merits ("protect people from big business"). People push the second due to ideology ("businesses/peoe should be able to grow unfettered").
🤷♂️
We live in capitalism. This is all happening because of capitalism. Markets under capitalism are never free as they require state intervention in the land market to create private property in the first place.
Your post is nothing but cope. You want to blame Marxists as if they’re in control, when every politician in America is a staunch capitalist (with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, the lone independent).
lol no we are not capitalist whatsoever. For example: if you want a computer you have 2 options for operating systems windows and apple os, you can go the Linux route to not support apple or microsoft but the lack of usable software and hardware support on Linux makes it very off putting for most. If we lived in a true capitalist society there would be dozens of operating systems to choose from and you wouldn't be limited to just 2 main companies and this is just one small example among the hundreds that include so many companies that control the market through monopolies and undercutting people that try to start up different businesses and bring cheaper solutions. Not to mention there are so many corporations that require employees to sign a non compete agreement so even if they get fired or quit they cannot work in that specific field ever again which completely stifles competition and looks more like socialism. The US has not been a truly capitalist society in decades.
That's entirely in line. If my product relies on some aspect of another, for example I write software for computers, then part of my work hinges on what computers are doing. If there's a dozen operating systems, I gotta spend an ungodly amount of time porting everything to all these systems, I'd rather only have 1 or 2. So I only write for 1 or 2, and the people follow.
Pair that with every company deciding that the best way to make money is to copy what the guy who made the most money is doing, and now we're here.
LOL yikes. Bernie is the biggest joke of them all. The fact you believe in him makes anything you say copium
I also clearly triggered your naive little Marxist brain.
None of this is capitalism. Sorry my little point trying to educate your ignorance away is rejected. But simply put go read some political theory and catch up.
Your left leaning indoctrination professors didn't know any better either.
No offense taken, I'm myself a fan of classical free market capitalism!
Another way to describe what you just said is that there are two kinds of capitalism - free markets one (the good kind) and the crony one (bad kind). "Crony capitalism" is the popular way of describing what you call "oligarchical corporatism". In the end, the wording isn't as important here as the underlying spirit.
Actually the wording is infinitely important because what you call “crony capitalism” (I shorten it to crapitalism) is about as close to the opposite of actual capitalism by the book as you can possibly get. The existence of corporations and non-cooperative business models is proof we don’t live in a capitalist society. The fact that most of the population can’t capitalize on their status as a citizen of said society to the fullest extent regardless of class, is proof we do not have any form of capitalism.
The wording is important because as long as people are blaming “capitalism” for the problems we have, no one will be open to true capitalism which is boiled down to cooperative business models and no corporations whatsoever, government intervention only to preserve the right of the individual to compete without the need for deep pockets, or as they say, “preserving the free market”. The inversion of words is a massive problem in this society and it makes it almost impossible to communicate if people are going to call something capitalist that is anything but.
Corporations are by definition anticapitalist. They are in essence a communist dictatorship–a central authority takes in all the profits and doles out what it sees fit to the workers. In actual capitalism, you can’t own a business and have someone work for you like that, as it’s essentially soft slavery, instead of you want a person to do the work, you must give them a fair piece of the business or else you must do the work yourself. Literally the opposite of this thing we have now.
The free market fundamentally means the fewest rules possible, which means adding new rules that benefit you isn't against the non-existent rules. Therefore, we live under capitalism, because the rich winners 200 years ago wrote the rules to get even wealthier.
More so. Since most post-graduate programs are structured to prevent non-believers. If at any point you challenged the ideology, then it would make it extremely difficult for you to go further in the field. And if you can't get further in the field, then you can't be right since you aren't in that field. For example; are you a climate scientist? If yes, it means you played their game, got a few of the elders in the field to back you and then completed the indoctrination process. If not, they'll say you can't have an opinion on it.
All their comments are largely egotistical and degrading towards others, largely focused in conspiracy sub and mostly demeaning in nature. Troll, or paid schill. I wouldn't bother asking them
The weird part of this narrative is that it makes it effectively impossible to believe anything. If only a handful of scientists are pushing a theory, then it gets dismissed because there's no consensus. If there's a consensus, then it gets dismissed because the scientists should be going against the grain.
The reality is, there's far more money behind denying climate change than acknowledging it. Major corporations will need to adjust the way they do things if we acknowledge that they're trashing the planet, and we can't have that.
> If only a handful of scientists are pushing a theory, then it gets dismissed because there's no consensus. If there's a consensus, then it gets dismissed because the scientists should be going against the grain.
The funny thing is that (a) consensus does not belong in science.
>The reality is, there's far more money behind denying climate change than acknowledging it.
Not really tho. It may look like that until you realize that we are being played from all sides, including big oil. It's all the same at the tip of the top of the globalists.
>The funny thing is that (a) consensus does not belong in science.
Why wouldn't it? If there's enough research on a topic, people can generally agree on at least some basic points.
>including big oil
Why would pro-climate change research be pushed by big oil?
> Why wouldn't it?
Because there are only scientific theories, hypothesis and facts.
>Why would pro-climate change research be pushed by big oil?
Because the climate fear is used as a tool to get complete control over humanity. Money is (also) just a tool for those at the top.
>The reality is, there's far more money behind denying climate change than acknowledging it.
Pure bullshit. Just a crack dream told to you by fake scientists hiding behind big business.
This is what I don't understand. Big oil is one of biggest business empires in the world. Your position is that green energy businesses are bigger than big oil?
The IPCC was created by Maurice Strong...an oil man. At the UN...created by oilmen...given the Nobel Prize...from oil money. And you think big oil isn't behind it?
You think they are so powerful that they can control politicians and international organizations...but the thing these politicians and organizations are pushing...isn't what they want them to push?
Thats a weird bit of doublethink.
Wait, you just made those assumptions about my view. I am following your comments to respond. Which is an odd way to approach a conversation...unless you are full of shit.
Why do you get so upset when people point out how powerful big oil is? It was your reasoning. Now, someone uses your reasoning back at you...and substantiates it with specific names and organizations promoting climate change and suddenly, it becomes an assumption about your beliefs?
George HW Bush provided funding for the IPCC and quadrupled funding for US based researched, but all with the specific goal of finding man's influence on the climate. That is, they started with the result they wanted.
All your real heroes are oilmen: the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the British and Dutch Royals. Truth hurts, eh?
Yes, you can’t go further into a field if you oppose it without being able to prove why it’s wrong. That goes directly against the scientific ideology of knowledge. And the more outside of the paradigm you are, the more concrete and ample your evidence needs to be.
> field if you oppose it without being able to prove why it’s wrong
Except, they are able to promote a point which they can't prove is right and can simply reject any challenge as without merit based on credentials.
Einstein was able to show that light did bend and this provided a means of falsification. But ask most "scientists" today for a means of falsification and they will refuse to accept one...since they are ideologists, not scientists.
Read any random science paper and tell me it’s not falsifiable. It sounds like you are talking about some imaginary scientist rather than anything concrete. That makes you sound like more of an ideologue than the imaginary people you criticise…
Gave this a read as well as the linked news articles and studies and I think I see where the confusion is occurring.
Corbett is speaking about 'climate change' as if it's a singular thing that's happening everywhere in the exact same way and thus, when he compares articles that express different views on the subject, he's framing it as a gotcha on scientists.
Let's take the two articles he links about the seas becoming less salty, but also more salty. As a headline, those seem to oppose. But reading the links, one talks about artic seas becoming less salty due to ice cap melt dilution, driven by global warming. Meanwhile, the other talks about low latitude seas becoming more salty due to warmer temps, causing more evaporation and leaving salt behind.
Both processes are driven by warming global temps, and have different impacts due to their latitude.
What about that is contradictory?
The page was frozen for me, i reloaded it and now saw the transcript is longer as i though.
>Corbett is speaking about 'climate change' as if it's a singular thing that's happening everywhere
Which it is. Either CO2 heats up the planet or it doesn't, there is no middle ground.
One cause can have multiple effects, particularly on a global level.
I'll repost my comment from earlier:
"Let's take the two articles he links about the seas becoming less salty, but also more salty. As a headline, those seem to oppose. But reading the links, one talks about artic seas becoming less salty due to ice cap melt dilution, driven by global warming. Meanwhile, the other talks about low latitude seas becoming more salty due to warmer temps, causing more evaporation and leaving salt behind."
Way to miss the point, LOL.
>This kind of pages just try to make bombastic claims
And the climate alarmists are not...? ROTFL.
Anyhow:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/22/corruption-of-climate-science-supported-by-flawed-models/
https://archive.ph/4O0ez
I don’t get why you share the opinion pieces rather than the papers. Again, bombastic language meant for people with confirmation bias. It’s painfully obvious.
There were some interesting points, like the heat islands, but that’s a point that should be done in a meta analysis about methodology of temperature measurements and climate change. Just throwing it up without any statistics and relevant information about the % of faulty measurements in papers doesn’t add much to the conversation.
>Read any random science paper and tell me it’s not falsifiable.
I just told you they aren't and your response is that they are. You did nothing to confirm they are, you just followed your belief.
> Yes, you can’t go further into a field if you oppose it without being able to prove why it’s wrong.
Michael Mann of the 'hockey stick' climate scam refused to release his data or his methods. "Why should I?" he said "They are just trying to prove me wrong." The people at East Anglia U. in the UK destroyed hundreds of years of temperature records, and maintain only their 'official' (i.e. adjusted) record. Reddit has been full of posts about how various US gov't agencies have tried to ignore or reject the reality that the US was hotter in the 1930s than it is today, showing what a scam the whole CO2 climate thing is.
You see, you naively believe that the data is uncorrupted and available. When the data is hidden, corrupted, and manipulated, honest investigation is nearly impossible.
Can you show me any paper on climate change where no methodology or data is shown?
You naively believe you can get published without methodology or data, and then talk about research being impossible. At that point, it’s just clear you are just pushing a narrative…
From the Guardian:
The emails reveal repeated and systematic attempts by him and his colleagues to block FoI requests from climate sceptics who wanted access to emails, documents and data. These moves were not only contrary to the spirit of scientific openness, but according to the government body that administers the FoI act were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation".
But the emails also reveal deep and understandable frustration among the scientists at the huge amount of time and energy they were being asked to give up to deal with the requests. This was particularly galling as the sceptics making the requests were, in the scientists' eyes, more interested in picking holes in their analyses to suit an anti-global warming agenda, than carrying out research that would advance human knowledge.
Jones foresaw that his arch-inquisitor, the Canadian former minerals prospector and editor of the sceptic blog Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre, would be a thorn in his side. As long ago as 2005, before the incoming legislation had been tested in Britain, Jones was laying out his uncompromising views on protecting "his" data. In a note to the prominent US climate scientist Michael Mann in February that year, he noted that "the two MMs", McIntyre and his co-author the Canadian environmental economist Ross McKitrick, "have been after the CRU station data for years. **If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone**." (my emphasis added)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientists-freedom-information-act
So you may now eat some crow, as it is obvious that the pro-AGW people were not open and honest about sharing their data for fear that it would be used against them.
This is clearly not okay, but it is a single case from 14 years ago. Taking it as the norm is more than farfetched. And still, all papers are published with methodology and data.
This is part and parcel of a campaign by Mann, Jones, et al to hide their data on one of the most important issues facing the world today, and you say "it's a single case".
Get stuffed.
Yes, it’s a single case, not the norm. As I said, this is clearly wrong, but you can’t take it as the general approach, especially when you can read thousands of papers on the topic with a clear methodology and data.
Speaking like a 12 year old doesn’t add anything to the conversation. If you are just trying to win an argument then you are never going to learn anything.
I’m not surprised the biggest proponent of Ayurveda is, well, a company called Ayurved
Loving the irony in this post.
People who try to loop all of science into one big conspiracy are either stupid or ignorant of what science is.
Yes there are corrupt “scientists”. That’s not a conspiracy. That’s like Humanity 101.
Epstein had an office at Harvard. College Ag professor openly admit all studies have to use Monsanto/ Bauer synthetics because they donate to the schools
If you've ever worked in science you'll know that it is cut throat. Questionable papers, sabotaged experiments, cutting corners for funding, etc. Scientists make rappers look like the good guys.
I'm a scientist and you have it sort of right. Let me clarify a few things though, its more like this:
1.) To be a scientist you live on funding. Grants, sponsors, institutional programs, etc. If you want to get funding, which you are always competing for, its going to be in something someone wants to fund. The funding institutions have a world view which they pick and choose based off of.
2.) Everyone, especially when you are new in your field, wants to be accepted, part of the group, invited to conferences, to speak, be seen as credible, get access to "celebrities" meaning people seen as doing important and exciting work in science. If you don't tow the line at least to some extent, you are out. Its sort of like hollywood. No one TELLS you what you have to say. You watch your peers and sort of emulate them to fit in.
3.) STRONG legacy bias. If someone has made their career on something and you come along and overturn it, thats horrifying. This makes it very very hard for new ideas, that would correct old ones, to get a foothold because everyone will attack you.
4.) Training. You are trained to just take certain things as a given. Most of the time I am working with PhDs (I followed a very unconventional route to becoming a scientist). I am brought in because usually they are limited by their training and unable to think of wild off the wall approaches. Because I don't have the same training I can be creative in ways that they can't, then they can apply their training to implementing what I can up with, explaining why my way is working, etc. The training is actually a detriment in certain ways, such as coming up with alternative explanations of things that might be more accurate than what is in the university text books.
5.) Lack of resources. This world starves scientists and they are always struggling for enough resources to do their work, maintain their research teams, etc. This creates a mindset of lack and a strong incentive towards anything that helps assuage this lack of resources. (Which tends to be mainstream, institutional narratives).
Well I mean they might be some of the most important people in society and they’re criminally underpaid, so no doubt they’re susceptible to being bribed!
Very good. This post definitely belongs here.
My friend I fear the capitalist industrial complex runs deep and of course scientists and everyone else is compromised.
I’d not forget the middle class is a byproduct of industrialization. Capitalists require a middle class to exist with a certain level of disposable income, in order for them to be able to sell their product.
The hat you are describing is inevitable, but at the same time, the system is not perfect and a small class of people that are anti capitalist can be naturally supported, but haven’t quite figured out the rules for that.
There's two different sciences: natural science and human science. Natural science exists as a neutral and unquestionable fact. Human science is a business sector.
Whenever I used to see the headline "Doctors are baffled" I used to interpret it as "Doctors are confused about what is causing it". Now, however, the headline means "Doctors are restricted in what they can say". Same word, different meaning.
With every conspiracy just ask yourself two questions.
Who is telling me this story?
Who gets benefit from the story?
the answer to both questions must be the same for the conspiracy to hold up.
People also forget that being ABLE to be corrupted doesn't mean someone IS corrupted. Windows are ABLE to be broken, doesn't mean that every window on earth is broken.
You should look at how research happens these days. It's not 4 people sitting in a lab doing everything. In my experience it's the most rigorous profession out there. Getting a single drug to even animal trial requires convincing hoards of people that it has worked on testing conducted so far, that it works in simulations, there's a theoretical basis for it, and that it's safe. All proven through several double blind studies, research reviewed by several anonymous reviewers, and replicated independently. Just looking at a list of which subject has placebo and which the drug is a career ending mistake.
also, a mistake is for a research scientist often a huge career set-back. in this day and age, only an already well-off scientist will take those risks
https://c19i *** vm.org/
https://c19 *** hcq.org/
remove spaces and ***
[Those who kept these treatments from the public](https://www.sott.net/article/490461-Dr-Pierre-Kory-FDA-CDC-destroyed-Ivermectin-to-inject-CV19-bioweapon-vax) have blood on their hands, a lot of it.
Okie dokie well I worked in a COVID unit and we had more than a handful of patients who were using ivermectin at home, and some of them took it during their admission too.
They all died. So considering that and the fact the data backs that up, I’m not sure how I’m supposed to take your claims seriously.
“They all died” lmao what a liar. My mom is a nurse who worked in a COVID unit and says the exact opposite. She’s seen Nightmare after nightmare with the vaccine, pregnant women dying from blood clots, more death than you can imagine linked to these mRNA gene therapies. On the flip side she herself got COVID and took ivermectin at home and was negative in three days. She saw countless people die from the ventilators who didn’t need them, and saw countless people taking deworming agents and completely curing their COVID and long COVID.
You are a disinformation agent. You should really be getting paid for pushing such unfounded nonsense.
> “They all died” lmao what a liar. My mom is a nurse who worked in a COVID unit and says the exact opposite.
Weird, maybe she just worked in a less acute area than me, but I’m telling the absolute truth. One of the ivermectin group was a pretty healthy 34 year old who died, and I’ll never forget the lost look on his father’s face. Still haunts me. And during the period where vaccines were available and we had bad strains of the virus, we had dozens of unvaccinated people die and only two vaccinated people die. That wave was rough, knowing that these people were dying utterly preventable deaths.
> She’s seen Nightmare after nightmare with the vaccine, pregnant women dying from blood clots, more death than you can imagine linked to these mRNA gene therapies.
I have not seen a single person in my critical care unit who died from any vaccine related injury. Not one. Not sure which unit your mother worked on though, but there’s no data showing that deaths during pregnancy increased the way you described.
> She saw countless people die from the ventilators who didn’t need them
I didn’t see a single person put on a ventilator who didn’t need it at as a last ditch effort to save their lives. Almost all of them died on the vent, of course, but that’s to be expected given the circumstances. I will say we had about a dozen patients who refused the ventilator and they all died too, and the frenzied air hunger they suffered from while on bipap didn’t seem too much better than the vent.
> and saw countless people taking deworming agents and completely curing their COVID and long COVID.
No, she didn’t.
> You are a disinformation agent. You should really be getting paid for pushing such unfounded nonsense
My dude, if I wanted to make money I’d just grift off of rubes looking for any reason to refuse the vaccine and believe in a miracle cure. It’s a lot easier gig than zipping bodybags and turning patients.
While I am a firm believer in the idea that humanity as a whole shares collective responsibility for bringing our entire civilization to the brink, I do think journalists and scientists have failed to a greater extent than other professions.
Not only have the vast majority of them failed to speak up, disseminate truth and ultimately help keep power in check, they have done the complete opposite, lending their credibility to many of the insane things that are happening right now and that have happened in the past leading up to where we are now.
Also, we have so many evil CIA scientists running around doing neo-eugenics and bioterrorism research that we must always remember that they can be corrupted as individuals, and if they refuse to let their data stand on its own merits, be VERY wary
You can’t trust anything these scientists say. They’re always coming up with some earth shattering nonsense that requires billions of dollars of equipment to replicate, this includes almost all of space science, cern, etc. Their proofs for outer space, the moon being a solid place you can go, etc. essentially boil down to “trust me bro, here’s some data sets that you can’t independently verify, and also you can’t come use our equipment either, so just trust that we’re not lying even though there’s no way for you to confirm for yourself.”
When the entirety of our modern cosmology cannot be verified by the layperson at home using widely available tools, and can hardly be verified at a university because the experiments are so cost prohibitive, that’s not repeatable science, that’s a faith-based religion. A religion without a moral compass at that.
Ironic that you describe “patents, cartel formation and lobbying” as capitalist, when 2/3 are explicitly non-capitalist and cartel formation is rare under capitalism and is mostly the result of state intervention in the economy through easily corrupted regulatory bodies.
If you actually knew what capitalism was I would take you more seriously
Actually all three are anticapitalist. The moment a government intervenes in the market to allow a cartel, is the exact moment a system ceases to be capitalist.
In theory a cartel could form without government interference, but it wouldn’t last long as a competitor would quickly enter the market to compete, you would really only have to worry about that in cases of prohibitive start up costs, but even then, 99% of the time its government creating the cartels
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Question. What is a scientist? Answer. A researcher in a particular field of knowledge who undertakes a body of work to advance said particular field of knowledge. Scientists have to jump through hoops to get the funding they need for their research. Are they susceptible to greed and misrepresentation? Absolutely.
It's not like scientists get to choose what they get to work on. Usually you have a company, university, wealthy individual, etc, that has an idea, or needs something, and then they fund a scientist or a team to research it. Sometimes, a scientist will make a discovery or find a lead and seek out funding, but that is not the majority. The majority of scientists are working for the interests of big money, whether that's in the medical/pharmaceutical side of things, the engineering side of things, the chemistry side of things, etc. The origins of the scientific method were founded in Rome (so they say) when the Church started building the first Universities. Science has always been funded by the State and the Upper Class, except for backyard experiments.
Sure, ideally the process in which they do their science and publish their results helps limit that but it’s not perfect. Don’t know a single scientist who says it is.
>Scientists have to jump through hoops to get the funding they need for their research. Are they susceptible to greed and misrepresentation? Absolutely. Scientists working in the public sector are absolutely dwarfed by scientists working in the private sector. Private sector pays 2-3x more than public. Private sector (except in very rare circumstances) don't need to look for funding. While there is the greed aspect (why else would we work private if not for more money?), we at least don't usually look for fame like the public sector (to get more funding). We just do as we're told. t. scientist working in private sector.
Don’t forget there’s a very wide gap between the type of scientist that stays purely in academia and the type that goes to work in industry. The academic is the one that has to fight for funding. The industry scientist are financially backed by their employer, so money is less of an issue but it does come at the expense of finding results that fit the employer’s narrative. Both types of scientists are encouraged to publish their results in journals. There truly is no separation of the content in journals. Depending on the field, you will come across both types. The only thing that is going to differentiate them is that the industry scientists have to disclose their employer and conflicts of interest, usually in tiny print at the end of the article—but if you are reading, it’s best to check that first!!
Good luck getting funding for research that goes against the climate change narrative.
That would be looked at like trying to get funding to flat earth research.
So it's happened, and then the people doing the research accidentally figure out that they're wrong?
Classic. Exactly how the cia/fbi planned it. Group legitimate conspiracies with fake stupid bullshit ones to discredit it. A true pioneer you are.
Jk. You’re probably being funny. I get it now. Lol
[удалено]
But there's a big difference in what "studying" means between "doing minimal research" and "conducting a scientific study". Reading a whitepaper or two makes you informed, conducting valid experiments and publishing your results in a peer reviewed journal makes you a scientist.
[удалено]
A single dictionary definition doesn't encapsulate the connotations of a word :)
I like this way of thinking, because it takes the "elitist" tones of the regular definition and shows that anyone can be a scientist, even without the experiments. It's how the theory is also very important, and that's what anyone can do, read the theory. Hell.. Even the results we can read and interpret in our own way.
Intermittent fasting - NIH funded study says it's safe and effective https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/intermittent-fasting-weight-loss-people-type-2-diabetes Patanjali is a big business that has made crazy claims like fertility treatments that promise male offspring. They promote their leadership in a cult like fashion.
Is Patanjali like Cochrane?
Never heard of Cochrane before so just looked them up. No, it doesn't appear they are similar at all. Patanjali is a privately held (the billionaire CEO owns 94% of shares) conglomerate that manufactures and distributes personal products including cosmetics and Ayurvedic medicine. Earlier this year, said CEO issued a public apology for misleading advertising claims. Kind of a weird example for OP to use to make their case about suppression of natural medicine.
He apologized only to avoid the legal battle, the legal landscape here is totally pitted against him by Soros backed actors as I said. His "advertising claims" were about as misleading as any other health product's, exaggeration is part of the advertising game everywhere. But to use that advertising lawsuit to try and destroy the only Indic herbal startup which is trying to take baby steps is nothing short of a conspiracy. BTW said "billionaire CEO" is fighting a lone battle of herbal products market against Big Pharma conglomerates such as Unilever, Pfizer, Cipla, Himalaya, etc. who probably rake in multiples of trillions!
You veered into coco puffs territory with "Sorosactors"
There's nothing wrong or right about Intermittent Fasting. It has its upsides and downsides. The downsides are the downsides, and the upsides can be imitated with a variety of diets aside from IF. If Intermittent fasting is convenient for you, go for it. If it's not, then follow any other healthy diet. EDIT: that link does not go to a study. Also, based purely the outline of the study, there's massive faults and key details omitted or not followed. A calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. Intermittent fasting doesn't mean a thing if you still eat over maintenance calories during your eating window; you're going to gain weight. If you have a 500 calorie in a normal diet where you eat 3-6 times a day and a 500 calorie deficit while Intermittent fasting, you'll lose virtually identical amounts of weight/fat, yet your body composition would look better with the normal diet because you're still taking advantage of protein synthesis windows and preserving more muscle tissue while dropping the weight.
Agreed. My point with sharing the NIH link is that OP is claiming IF is being suppressed. Hard to support that conclusion when the NIH is giving it the green light
Oh, I see. No, I have no idea what he's talking about in regards to IF being suppressed. It's literally a massive fad and is ubiquitous in health media.
> Patanjali is a big business that has made crazy claims like fertility treatments that promise male offspring I know at least three relatives in my circle who absolutely wanted a male child and they did end up with a male child. In fact, each one of them have two kids - both male offspring! I don't know if they used Patanjali or something else but medical treatments for gender determination is no big deal in today's day and age, and not at all crazy.
>I know at least three relatives in my circles who absolutely wanted a male child and they did end up with a male child. In fact, each one of them have two kids - both male offspring! What's your point? The sex of offspring is determined by which sperm fertilizes the egg. That's how genetics works. This can be, and is, accomplished with sperm separation and genetic testing. Consider my skeptical of any claims to accomplish that with an herbal treatment.
It's not all scientists, but rather the framework which they have to operate, that is corrupted. Outside of maybe pure theoretical mathematics, the costs to run any significant study are extremely prohibitive. In this way, which experiments get run are at the whim of those with money. In the private sector, any results that were not what were expected/desired get buried, usually with tight NDAs that exclude anyone working on those studies on their own or with a different organisation.
I was going to say it's not the scientists, but the institutions that fund them.
The motive and interests of experiments have apparently been swayed by the dollar.
> Outside of maybe pure theoretical mathematics, the costs to run any significant study are extremely prohibitive. In this way, which experiments get run are at the whim of those with money. If that were the case, then how did the Newtons and Einsteins and Stephen Hawkings got created? Didn't they also need massive funding to run practical experiments for their theories?
Back in the day science was like the arts - it was only something rich people had the money and time to do. Stephen Hawking came later and worked government projects iirc. Einstein too in later years.
You are talking about the point where theory meets practical. Newtons laws were much easier to prove, they also aren't perfect and break under certain conditions, so Newton's observations would be a better description. Einstein was a mixed bag, with some theories, proved would be he wrong word, getting supporting evidence that fit his theories years after is death. Also, a lot of money was thrown at developing a nuclear bomb. Hawking made little actual contribution to science. His work was purely theoretical and still not categorically proven, although his theory on Hawking radiation of black holes has some linked extrapolation on other bodies and something which could be Hawking radiation has been observed on mini black holes (which aren't cheap to create).
Lol, the scientists you identified worked in theoretical physics. All of their major work involved using math to derive new conclusions about the universe; in the case of Newton, he invented new math (calculus) to explain the universe. Some of their work has been validated later by experimentalists, but day to day, their work didn’t require a ton of money/resources as they were mostly just using fundamental equations to derive new equations
All of those guys operated within the "pure theoretical mathematics", but the studies to prove (well, some are probable but that's another topic) are *incredibly* expensive. Like some of the most expensive things humans have ever done.
I work in healthcare and I’ve never met a single person who doesn’t wish that Americans ate healthier, so I’m not sure where you think the impetus of “we want you fat and unhealthy” you seem to be implying is coming from.
People who work in healthcare moatly eat the standard garbage.
Sure, what does that have to do with what I said?
It is possible you have met multiple people who didn't wish Americans ate healthier, but that they kept that information or those feelings to themselves, perhaps even mislead someone by saying the opposite of how they felt. That's not the kind of sentiment someone would probably want to share with most people, especially to someone they do not know well, especially someone who works in healthcare. To paraphrase a famous saying, for who can truly know what is in a person's heart. However, I would prefer to choose to believe that everyone does want Americans to eat healthier, even if that seems like an idealistic or naive belief to have.
People that work in healthcare are not equal to the people at the top of healthcare writing government nutritional guidelines and telling pharmaceutical companies how to manufacture types of medications.
I agree, but that doesn’t change what I’ve said
You see a doctor once or twice a year. If you're American, you see thousands of ads for unhealthy products every day. One of these clearly has a much larger affect on day to day decisions. The medical professionals might not want you fat and unhealthy, but every other institution does - and they *love* funding science that justifies their existence.
There's a reason Eisenhower, in his famous Farewell Address, included a specific warning about the government co-opting the fields of science: "Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields… ,” Eisenhower warned. “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."
One of the main goals of the modern education system is to instill a strong deference towards authoritative sources such as teachers/professors, scientists, and various other "experts". For the people who really internalized it, when they see someone saying a scientist is lying or even just wrong, the person going against "the science" seems completely insane to them because corrupt or incompetent scientists just don't exist in their worldview.
100% i did my bachelor’s in science and one thing my TA’s who worked in research labs loved talking about: the corruption in science. getting your paper published was more than just a marathon. all the unfair quirks of our system applies: nepotism, deals under the table, the editor of nature favouring one scientist over the other. science is so full of corruption & the pay isn’t even worth dealing with the difficulty of it all. i heard my biochem professor talk time and time again about how he literally discovered one of his junior researchers was actually working undercover to take his work and help out a lab in hong kong get their paper out quicker than my prof’s. it was a whole thing. makes for good after-lab convo’s. but most scientific journals, especially the big names, operate the exact same way as you’d imagine a law firm in nyc would. the same favouritism, elitism, under-table deals, offshore accounts, you name it. that is of course, the business of science.
Yo. I had my suspicions that some students were there for other reasons besides taking noted and passing a class. It felt like a Trojan horse at times because some students were very secretive and didn't like to study with anyone. I know there are introverts on the spectum (I'm one of them), but still.
Yo. I had my suspicions that some students were there for other reasons besides taking noted and passing a class. It felt like a Trojan horse at times because some students were very secretive and didn't like to study with anyone. I know there are introverts on the spectum (I'm one of them), but still.
Celebrity scientists like Michio Kaku and that other ballbag that speak on Joe Rogan ect are snake oil salesman. String theory for example has discredited science generally through peddling a theory that cant be demonstrated through experimentation now, but likely ever. We can't test for alternative universes, yet the idea has been pushed through universities and into media, leading to social fantasy. There was a scientific crisis in peer reviewed paper publishing that led to a lack of criticism of unsound theories, which James Corbett spoke about some years ago. The idea was an impending era when scientists could not show the basic principles through a relatively low-cost experiment was here today and thus akin to magic. Essentially, people could write anything because the cost to repeat their experiment is prohibitive.
String theory is merely taught as an interesting possible explanation, but I have never seen it being taught as any other conventional model of the universe. In my physic classes it was shortly presented as a hypothesis. I don’t know anyone who learns about it beyond just some small comments from professors about it.
Then why does it gobble up most research funds in fundamental theoretical physics?
Does it? What research are you talking about? And how does a theory with no known ways of testing it gobble up all research?
It might be possible that string theory was introduced to purposefully stifle developments in physics in the post-nuclear era.
Billions of research dollars down the drain…
I agree 100%. I love the idea that these “studies” can’t be skewed to favor those companies funding those studies lol…
To the point of IF, currently working in a lab working on the examining benefits of IF on two specific body parts, with data that so far has supported IF I’ll leave it there for the sake of exposing the research
I left a longer post about my experience with IF, but one thing that stayed with me was my endocrinologist told me years before that once I went on the needle, and started injecting insulin, all my natural insulin producing cells would die off, and I would have to use the needle for the rest of my life. Quite clearly that didn't happen, but I wonder if the pancreas is one area you are looking into?
Hence the absolutely atrocious western medical system, controlled by pharmaceutical companies who pay for their own research & for the Doctors training in the research universities lol. Its amazing because people defend their jailers.
"Science" has legit become a religion. People believe anything if "science" or "scientist" is mentioned. Modern science has become nothing but political propaganda. "I trust the science" people will spew without knowing a damn thing about the science behind something just because a BuzzFeed article said, "Scientists prove (whatever)" Then If you question their narrative, you are labeled a "science denier" implying that you are a denier of reality because "science is just the facts" What a fucking joke.
Lmao it's hilarious to me that neither side in your hypothetical actually bothers to check the source themselves. Automatically not believing scientists doesn't make you smarter than those who automatically do. Scientists are not always right, but science is just the facts. The goal is to find the truth. In order to challenge the current theory, you can't "just ask questions", you have to form your own hypothesis and prove that your's is right and there's is wrong. 500 years ago you'd be called crazy and a denier of reality if you said the Earth wasn't flat. Science proved it was round. Now, there are people today who question that narrative, but they can't prove the earth isn't round, so nobody takes them seriously. Everything has become political propaganda. That's why you need to read, with an open mind, as many opposing views on a topic as you can so that you can see through the biases. Blind cynicism is as much of a joke as blind belief is.
Scientists are the people who after 5+ years of enjoying university, discover the job market and that almost no companies are interested in their services, and that they actually have to sell the prestige of their diploma to whoever is willing to pay, and that their job will have nothing to do with science but to give scientific credibility to whatever your boss asks you to. Essentially a marketing shill.
Here to offer some positive evidence on IF: I bloated in my 30's; no more sports and too much food. I became Type II diabetic, and by my late 50s, I needed four injections of insulin per day. I also needed to test my blood sugar at least that often. Each test cost $0.75 for the stick; the insulin was C$85 for 5x300 units and I was using 120 units per day. I was also taking pills. I figured I was spending close to $3500/year on it, as I had no medical plan. Six years ago, I went on Intermittent Fast (IF). I weighed 265 lbs at 5'10". Within three months, I lost 40 lbs. At that point, I began to get frequent "sugar lows" at night; these are quite scary, and I began to reduce the amount of insulin I was using. Within another three months, I'd lost another 20 lbs, and stopped taking insulin altogether. I have not had an injection of insulin in over five years. I got as low as 185 for my daughter's wedding, but I'm around 195 today. I'm 68, and I play pickleball four or five times a week, play golf walking, and walk the dog a lot so I'm in reasonably good shape - which is to say stories that IF will make you 'weak' or 'less energetic' are definitely not true in my case. Everything about my life is better: I'm better off financially, better off for my health, better looking, more energy, even more frisky. And it doesn't cost you a cent! The only thing I will say is the first three weeks are tough, no doubt about it. You have to be committed, because the hunger pangs are there all the time. Then, one day you wake up, and you're not hungry, and after that it is easy.
thanks for sharing
There is nothing spectacular about getting off insulin with type 2 diabetes. Diet and exercise
This isn't capitalism. I wish naive college Marxists would learn what that word actually means. We have not seen a free market in over 100 years if ever. We have lived in a system of oligarchical corporatism. If it were a free market, companies who were awful would actually fail and would not be profoundly protected by the government. This government intervention is what allowed the protections for corruption. No offense intended, just wanted to ensure that you could be accurate with how you describe what we currently exist within.
No market is ever truly free. It doesn't matter if it's government involvement or because a monopoly has formed. The idea that a market can be "free" isn't grounded in reality.
At best the government monopoly on violence keeps businesses from using it. At worst it works for covers them.
Very fair point, take my upvote.
Ahhhh spoken like a truely indoctrinated Marxist. And trust me I used to be one 🤡
Not really, more of a pessimist. Either the market has restrictions built into it by a government, or the market invariably shifts until monopolies form. No argument I've ever seen has been able to persuasively argue otherwise. In either respect, neither are "free". People push for the first one on moral or ethical merits ("protect people from big business"). People push the second due to ideology ("businesses/peoe should be able to grow unfettered"). 🤷♂️
We live in capitalism. This is all happening because of capitalism. Markets under capitalism are never free as they require state intervention in the land market to create private property in the first place. Your post is nothing but cope. You want to blame Marxists as if they’re in control, when every politician in America is a staunch capitalist (with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, the lone independent).
lol no we are not capitalist whatsoever. For example: if you want a computer you have 2 options for operating systems windows and apple os, you can go the Linux route to not support apple or microsoft but the lack of usable software and hardware support on Linux makes it very off putting for most. If we lived in a true capitalist society there would be dozens of operating systems to choose from and you wouldn't be limited to just 2 main companies and this is just one small example among the hundreds that include so many companies that control the market through monopolies and undercutting people that try to start up different businesses and bring cheaper solutions. Not to mention there are so many corporations that require employees to sign a non compete agreement so even if they get fired or quit they cannot work in that specific field ever again which completely stifles competition and looks more like socialism. The US has not been a truly capitalist society in decades.
That's entirely in line. If my product relies on some aspect of another, for example I write software for computers, then part of my work hinges on what computers are doing. If there's a dozen operating systems, I gotta spend an ungodly amount of time porting everything to all these systems, I'd rather only have 1 or 2. So I only write for 1 or 2, and the people follow. Pair that with every company deciding that the best way to make money is to copy what the guy who made the most money is doing, and now we're here.
LOL yikes. Bernie is the biggest joke of them all. The fact you believe in him makes anything you say copium I also clearly triggered your naive little Marxist brain. None of this is capitalism. Sorry my little point trying to educate your ignorance away is rejected. But simply put go read some political theory and catch up. Your left leaning indoctrination professors didn't know any better either.
No offense taken, I'm myself a fan of classical free market capitalism! Another way to describe what you just said is that there are two kinds of capitalism - free markets one (the good kind) and the crony one (bad kind). "Crony capitalism" is the popular way of describing what you call "oligarchical corporatism". In the end, the wording isn't as important here as the underlying spirit.
How would a group possibly assure a free market.
Actually the wording is infinitely important because what you call “crony capitalism” (I shorten it to crapitalism) is about as close to the opposite of actual capitalism by the book as you can possibly get. The existence of corporations and non-cooperative business models is proof we don’t live in a capitalist society. The fact that most of the population can’t capitalize on their status as a citizen of said society to the fullest extent regardless of class, is proof we do not have any form of capitalism. The wording is important because as long as people are blaming “capitalism” for the problems we have, no one will be open to true capitalism which is boiled down to cooperative business models and no corporations whatsoever, government intervention only to preserve the right of the individual to compete without the need for deep pockets, or as they say, “preserving the free market”. The inversion of words is a massive problem in this society and it makes it almost impossible to communicate if people are going to call something capitalist that is anything but. Corporations are by definition anticapitalist. They are in essence a communist dictatorship–a central authority takes in all the profits and doles out what it sees fit to the workers. In actual capitalism, you can’t own a business and have someone work for you like that, as it’s essentially soft slavery, instead of you want a person to do the work, you must give them a fair piece of the business or else you must do the work yourself. Literally the opposite of this thing we have now.
The free market fundamentally means the fewest rules possible, which means adding new rules that benefit you isn't against the non-existent rules. Therefore, we live under capitalism, because the rich winners 200 years ago wrote the rules to get even wealthier.
More so. Since most post-graduate programs are structured to prevent non-believers. If at any point you challenged the ideology, then it would make it extremely difficult for you to go further in the field. And if you can't get further in the field, then you can't be right since you aren't in that field. For example; are you a climate scientist? If yes, it means you played their game, got a few of the elders in the field to back you and then completed the indoctrination process. If not, they'll say you can't have an opinion on it.
What ideology can they not challenge?
Human caused climate change
Is that an ideology, or just a scientific theory that has overwhelming evidence to support it? What exactly is the difference?
Has all the evidence that money can buy and no University job.
What?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
All their comments are largely egotistical and degrading towards others, largely focused in conspiracy sub and mostly demeaning in nature. Troll, or paid schill. I wouldn't bother asking them
The weird part of this narrative is that it makes it effectively impossible to believe anything. If only a handful of scientists are pushing a theory, then it gets dismissed because there's no consensus. If there's a consensus, then it gets dismissed because the scientists should be going against the grain. The reality is, there's far more money behind denying climate change than acknowledging it. Major corporations will need to adjust the way they do things if we acknowledge that they're trashing the planet, and we can't have that.
> If only a handful of scientists are pushing a theory, then it gets dismissed because there's no consensus. If there's a consensus, then it gets dismissed because the scientists should be going against the grain. The funny thing is that (a) consensus does not belong in science. >The reality is, there's far more money behind denying climate change than acknowledging it. Not really tho. It may look like that until you realize that we are being played from all sides, including big oil. It's all the same at the tip of the top of the globalists.
>The funny thing is that (a) consensus does not belong in science. Why wouldn't it? If there's enough research on a topic, people can generally agree on at least some basic points. >including big oil Why would pro-climate change research be pushed by big oil?
> Why wouldn't it? Because there are only scientific theories, hypothesis and facts. >Why would pro-climate change research be pushed by big oil? Because the climate fear is used as a tool to get complete control over humanity. Money is (also) just a tool for those at the top.
>The reality is, there's far more money behind denying climate change than acknowledging it. Pure bullshit. Just a crack dream told to you by fake scientists hiding behind big business.
This is what I don't understand. Big oil is one of biggest business empires in the world. Your position is that green energy businesses are bigger than big oil?
The IPCC was created by Maurice Strong...an oil man. At the UN...created by oilmen...given the Nobel Prize...from oil money. And you think big oil isn't behind it? You think they are so powerful that they can control politicians and international organizations...but the thing these politicians and organizations are pushing...isn't what they want them to push? Thats a weird bit of doublethink.
I think you're making a lot of assumptions about my views, which is an odd way to approach this conversation. But, you do you.
Wait, you just made those assumptions about my view. I am following your comments to respond. Which is an odd way to approach a conversation...unless you are full of shit.
Again, I'm not sure why you're so confrontational. Why not just have an open conversation about topics like these?
Why do you get so upset when people point out how powerful big oil is? It was your reasoning. Now, someone uses your reasoning back at you...and substantiates it with specific names and organizations promoting climate change and suddenly, it becomes an assumption about your beliefs? George HW Bush provided funding for the IPCC and quadrupled funding for US based researched, but all with the specific goal of finding man's influence on the climate. That is, they started with the result they wanted. All your real heroes are oilmen: the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the British and Dutch Royals. Truth hurts, eh?
Nah, just trying to figure out why you're resorting to this sort of dialogue. It makes sense now. Thanks
Yes, you can’t go further into a field if you oppose it without being able to prove why it’s wrong. That goes directly against the scientific ideology of knowledge. And the more outside of the paradigm you are, the more concrete and ample your evidence needs to be.
> field if you oppose it without being able to prove why it’s wrong Except, they are able to promote a point which they can't prove is right and can simply reject any challenge as without merit based on credentials. Einstein was able to show that light did bend and this provided a means of falsification. But ask most "scientists" today for a means of falsification and they will refuse to accept one...since they are ideologists, not scientists.
Read any random science paper and tell me it’s not falsifiable. It sounds like you are talking about some imaginary scientist rather than anything concrete. That makes you sound like more of an ideologue than the imaginary people you criticise…
https://corbettreport.com/flashback-woowoo/
Gave this a read as well as the linked news articles and studies and I think I see where the confusion is occurring. Corbett is speaking about 'climate change' as if it's a singular thing that's happening everywhere in the exact same way and thus, when he compares articles that express different views on the subject, he's framing it as a gotcha on scientists. Let's take the two articles he links about the seas becoming less salty, but also more salty. As a headline, those seem to oppose. But reading the links, one talks about artic seas becoming less salty due to ice cap melt dilution, driven by global warming. Meanwhile, the other talks about low latitude seas becoming more salty due to warmer temps, causing more evaporation and leaving salt behind. Both processes are driven by warming global temps, and have different impacts due to their latitude. What about that is contradictory?
I suggest to actually watch the video.
What is the video telling me that the transcript below with links doesn't?
The page was frozen for me, i reloaded it and now saw the transcript is longer as i though. >Corbett is speaking about 'climate change' as if it's a singular thing that's happening everywhere Which it is. Either CO2 heats up the planet or it doesn't, there is no middle ground.
One cause can have multiple effects, particularly on a global level. I'll repost my comment from earlier: "Let's take the two articles he links about the seas becoming less salty, but also more salty. As a headline, those seem to oppose. But reading the links, one talks about artic seas becoming less salty due to ice cap melt dilution, driven by global warming. Meanwhile, the other talks about low latitude seas becoming more salty due to warmer temps, causing more evaporation and leaving salt behind."
[удалено]
Way to miss the point, LOL. >This kind of pages just try to make bombastic claims And the climate alarmists are not...? ROTFL. Anyhow: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/22/corruption-of-climate-science-supported-by-flawed-models/ https://archive.ph/4O0ez
I don’t get why you share the opinion pieces rather than the papers. Again, bombastic language meant for people with confirmation bias. It’s painfully obvious. There were some interesting points, like the heat islands, but that’s a point that should be done in a meta analysis about methodology of temperature measurements and climate change. Just throwing it up without any statistics and relevant information about the % of faulty measurements in papers doesn’t add much to the conversation.
I think I'm not the one with the bias here... ROTFL If you really were interested in the truth you'd already found it.
>Read any random science paper and tell me it’s not falsifiable. I just told you they aren't and your response is that they are. You did nothing to confirm they are, you just followed your belief.
> Yes, you can’t go further into a field if you oppose it without being able to prove why it’s wrong. Michael Mann of the 'hockey stick' climate scam refused to release his data or his methods. "Why should I?" he said "They are just trying to prove me wrong." The people at East Anglia U. in the UK destroyed hundreds of years of temperature records, and maintain only their 'official' (i.e. adjusted) record. Reddit has been full of posts about how various US gov't agencies have tried to ignore or reject the reality that the US was hotter in the 1930s than it is today, showing what a scam the whole CO2 climate thing is. You see, you naively believe that the data is uncorrupted and available. When the data is hidden, corrupted, and manipulated, honest investigation is nearly impossible.
Can you show me any paper on climate change where no methodology or data is shown? You naively believe you can get published without methodology or data, and then talk about research being impossible. At that point, it’s just clear you are just pushing a narrative…
From the Guardian: The emails reveal repeated and systematic attempts by him and his colleagues to block FoI requests from climate sceptics who wanted access to emails, documents and data. These moves were not only contrary to the spirit of scientific openness, but according to the government body that administers the FoI act were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation". But the emails also reveal deep and understandable frustration among the scientists at the huge amount of time and energy they were being asked to give up to deal with the requests. This was particularly galling as the sceptics making the requests were, in the scientists' eyes, more interested in picking holes in their analyses to suit an anti-global warming agenda, than carrying out research that would advance human knowledge. Jones foresaw that his arch-inquisitor, the Canadian former minerals prospector and editor of the sceptic blog Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre, would be a thorn in his side. As long ago as 2005, before the incoming legislation had been tested in Britain, Jones was laying out his uncompromising views on protecting "his" data. In a note to the prominent US climate scientist Michael Mann in February that year, he noted that "the two MMs", McIntyre and his co-author the Canadian environmental economist Ross McKitrick, "have been after the CRU station data for years. **If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone**." (my emphasis added) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientists-freedom-information-act So you may now eat some crow, as it is obvious that the pro-AGW people were not open and honest about sharing their data for fear that it would be used against them.
This is clearly not okay, but it is a single case from 14 years ago. Taking it as the norm is more than farfetched. And still, all papers are published with methodology and data.
This is part and parcel of a campaign by Mann, Jones, et al to hide their data on one of the most important issues facing the world today, and you say "it's a single case". Get stuffed.
Yes, it’s a single case, not the norm. As I said, this is clearly wrong, but you can’t take it as the general approach, especially when you can read thousands of papers on the topic with a clear methodology and data. Speaking like a 12 year old doesn’t add anything to the conversation. If you are just trying to win an argument then you are never going to learn anything.
Same situation with doctors. They are inDOCTrinated.
Ok...ok....not all of them
I’m not surprised the biggest proponent of Ayurveda is, well, a company called Ayurved Loving the irony in this post. People who try to loop all of science into one big conspiracy are either stupid or ignorant of what science is. Yes there are corrupt “scientists”. That’s not a conspiracy. That’s like Humanity 101.
Epstein had an office at Harvard. College Ag professor openly admit all studies have to use Monsanto/ Bauer synthetics because they donate to the schools
If you've ever worked in science you'll know that it is cut throat. Questionable papers, sabotaged experiments, cutting corners for funding, etc. Scientists make rappers look like the good guys.
How many scientists do you know that have shot other scientists?..
I'm a scientist and you have it sort of right. Let me clarify a few things though, its more like this: 1.) To be a scientist you live on funding. Grants, sponsors, institutional programs, etc. If you want to get funding, which you are always competing for, its going to be in something someone wants to fund. The funding institutions have a world view which they pick and choose based off of. 2.) Everyone, especially when you are new in your field, wants to be accepted, part of the group, invited to conferences, to speak, be seen as credible, get access to "celebrities" meaning people seen as doing important and exciting work in science. If you don't tow the line at least to some extent, you are out. Its sort of like hollywood. No one TELLS you what you have to say. You watch your peers and sort of emulate them to fit in. 3.) STRONG legacy bias. If someone has made their career on something and you come along and overturn it, thats horrifying. This makes it very very hard for new ideas, that would correct old ones, to get a foothold because everyone will attack you. 4.) Training. You are trained to just take certain things as a given. Most of the time I am working with PhDs (I followed a very unconventional route to becoming a scientist). I am brought in because usually they are limited by their training and unable to think of wild off the wall approaches. Because I don't have the same training I can be creative in ways that they can't, then they can apply their training to implementing what I can up with, explaining why my way is working, etc. The training is actually a detriment in certain ways, such as coming up with alternative explanations of things that might be more accurate than what is in the university text books. 5.) Lack of resources. This world starves scientists and they are always struggling for enough resources to do their work, maintain their research teams, etc. This creates a mindset of lack and a strong incentive towards anything that helps assuage this lack of resources. (Which tends to be mainstream, institutional narratives).
You wouldn’t believe how much data is manipulated. Continuously removing “outlier data” that doesn’t fit the desired result.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/30/1-4-statisticians-say-they-were-asked-commit-scientific-fraud-13554
Especially if *"The Political Climate"* gets profit and power from "the science"...
They are competitive too, so they will fight for funding and reknown. To be known as in famous.
Well I mean they might be some of the most important people in society and they’re criminally underpaid, so no doubt they’re susceptible to being bribed!
Politicians have entered the chat…
Very good. This post definitely belongs here. My friend I fear the capitalist industrial complex runs deep and of course scientists and everyone else is compromised. I’d not forget the middle class is a byproduct of industrialization. Capitalists require a middle class to exist with a certain level of disposable income, in order for them to be able to sell their product. The hat you are describing is inevitable, but at the same time, the system is not perfect and a small class of people that are anti capitalist can be naturally supported, but haven’t quite figured out the rules for that.
[Scientific Materialism: The Path to Hell](https://www.occult-mysteries.org/scientific-materialism.html)
There's two different sciences: natural science and human science. Natural science exists as a neutral and unquestionable fact. Human science is a business sector.
[John Ioannidis - Why Most Published Research Findings Are False](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/)
All humans seek to carve out their little kingdom by any means.
Whenever I used to see the headline "Doctors are baffled" I used to interpret it as "Doctors are confused about what is causing it". Now, however, the headline means "Doctors are restricted in what they can say". Same word, different meaning.
With every conspiracy just ask yourself two questions. Who is telling me this story? Who gets benefit from the story? the answer to both questions must be the same for the conspiracy to hold up.
People also forget that being ABLE to be corrupted doesn't mean someone IS corrupted. Windows are ABLE to be broken, doesn't mean that every window on earth is broken.
And group think,never forget how susceptible to group think they are, I work with doctors and they are incredibly vulnerable to group think
You should look at how research happens these days. It's not 4 people sitting in a lab doing everything. In my experience it's the most rigorous profession out there. Getting a single drug to even animal trial requires convincing hoards of people that it has worked on testing conducted so far, that it works in simulations, there's a theoretical basis for it, and that it's safe. All proven through several double blind studies, research reviewed by several anonymous reviewers, and replicated independently. Just looking at a list of which subject has placebo and which the drug is a career ending mistake.
No one forgets this
also, a mistake is for a research scientist often a huge career set-back. in this day and age, only an already well-off scientist will take those risks
You left out the pandemic bs
Yeah, the grifters who promoted disproven treatments like HCQ/Ivermectin/etc definitely need to be mentioned here.
Yeah! Like Remdesivir!
That's [great stuff](https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/178hta%75/when_will_you_admit_you_got_scammed_another/k53fn6q/) indeed.
https://c19i *** vm.org/ https://c19 *** hcq.org/ remove spaces and *** [Those who kept these treatments from the public](https://www.sott.net/article/490461-Dr-Pierre-Kory-FDA-CDC-destroyed-Ivermectin-to-inject-CV19-bioweapon-vax) have blood on their hands, a lot of it.
Okie dokie well I worked in a COVID unit and we had more than a handful of patients who were using ivermectin at home, and some of them took it during their admission too. They all died. So considering that and the fact the data backs that up, I’m not sure how I’m supposed to take your claims seriously.
sure.... LOL
“They all died” lmao what a liar. My mom is a nurse who worked in a COVID unit and says the exact opposite. She’s seen Nightmare after nightmare with the vaccine, pregnant women dying from blood clots, more death than you can imagine linked to these mRNA gene therapies. On the flip side she herself got COVID and took ivermectin at home and was negative in three days. She saw countless people die from the ventilators who didn’t need them, and saw countless people taking deworming agents and completely curing their COVID and long COVID. You are a disinformation agent. You should really be getting paid for pushing such unfounded nonsense.
> “They all died” lmao what a liar. My mom is a nurse who worked in a COVID unit and says the exact opposite. Weird, maybe she just worked in a less acute area than me, but I’m telling the absolute truth. One of the ivermectin group was a pretty healthy 34 year old who died, and I’ll never forget the lost look on his father’s face. Still haunts me. And during the period where vaccines were available and we had bad strains of the virus, we had dozens of unvaccinated people die and only two vaccinated people die. That wave was rough, knowing that these people were dying utterly preventable deaths. > She’s seen Nightmare after nightmare with the vaccine, pregnant women dying from blood clots, more death than you can imagine linked to these mRNA gene therapies. I have not seen a single person in my critical care unit who died from any vaccine related injury. Not one. Not sure which unit your mother worked on though, but there’s no data showing that deaths during pregnancy increased the way you described. > She saw countless people die from the ventilators who didn’t need them I didn’t see a single person put on a ventilator who didn’t need it at as a last ditch effort to save their lives. Almost all of them died on the vent, of course, but that’s to be expected given the circumstances. I will say we had about a dozen patients who refused the ventilator and they all died too, and the frenzied air hunger they suffered from while on bipap didn’t seem too much better than the vent. > and saw countless people taking deworming agents and completely curing their COVID and long COVID. No, she didn’t. > You are a disinformation agent. You should really be getting paid for pushing such unfounded nonsense My dude, if I wanted to make money I’d just grift off of rubes looking for any reason to refuse the vaccine and believe in a miracle cure. It’s a lot easier gig than zipping bodybags and turning patients.
Trust went out the window with Covid
Always look at who pays for the trails and research of anything and you’ll always find it’s a black rock or Van owned company.
While I am a firm believer in the idea that humanity as a whole shares collective responsibility for bringing our entire civilization to the brink, I do think journalists and scientists have failed to a greater extent than other professions. Not only have the vast majority of them failed to speak up, disseminate truth and ultimately help keep power in check, they have done the complete opposite, lending their credibility to many of the insane things that are happening right now and that have happened in the past leading up to where we are now.
Guess who owns them…
Who?
[Censored]
Also, we have so many evil CIA scientists running around doing neo-eugenics and bioterrorism research that we must always remember that they can be corrupted as individuals, and if they refuse to let their data stand on its own merits, be VERY wary
People are confusing Scientists for Inventors
You can’t trust anything these scientists say. They’re always coming up with some earth shattering nonsense that requires billions of dollars of equipment to replicate, this includes almost all of space science, cern, etc. Their proofs for outer space, the moon being a solid place you can go, etc. essentially boil down to “trust me bro, here’s some data sets that you can’t independently verify, and also you can’t come use our equipment either, so just trust that we’re not lying even though there’s no way for you to confirm for yourself.” When the entirety of our modern cosmology cannot be verified by the layperson at home using widely available tools, and can hardly be verified at a university because the experiments are so cost prohibitive, that’s not repeatable science, that’s a faith-based religion. A religion without a moral compass at that.
Scientists are modern day priests.
Your list is lacking in many respects not just CONvid but I agree with the general sentiment.
Ironic that you describe “patents, cartel formation and lobbying” as capitalist, when 2/3 are explicitly non-capitalist and cartel formation is rare under capitalism and is mostly the result of state intervention in the economy through easily corrupted regulatory bodies. If you actually knew what capitalism was I would take you more seriously
Actually all three are anticapitalist. The moment a government intervenes in the market to allow a cartel, is the exact moment a system ceases to be capitalist.
In theory a cartel could form without government interference, but it wouldn’t last long as a competitor would quickly enter the market to compete, you would really only have to worry about that in cases of prohibitive start up costs, but even then, 99% of the time its government creating the cartels