Buying the Truth: Peer reviewers have made over a billion dollars from the top four medical outlets

I read a fascinating book this week that I thought was very revealing about the field of anthropology by a professor of that field called Weaponizing Anthropology, which is about how the CIA has infiltrated that science and the colleges that teach it to shape narratives to build a social narrative.  The book by David Price, I think, explains a lot about just how wrong it is that we establish what we think of as a fact.  And it reminded me of the problems revealed during Covid from the Lancet in England, a very respected medical publication, where Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci found ways to manipulate the important news of hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin to prevent and treat Covid-19.  And to take away that hope from millions of people suffering from the artificial virus, let loose from a lab in China to spread around the world, from gain-of-function research.  Regarding the field of anthropology and the related sciences, I have complained a lot about some of the ridiculous assumptions made about the mound building culture in the Ohio Valley for instance that steers concern more toward a hunter and gatherer mindset of gradual evolution when in fact we are looking at a Vico Cycle of continued decline and rebirth from cultures extending deep into the past, well beyond the Archaic Period.  And recently, we learned that peer reviewers for four of the top medical journals have received payments from drug and medical device manufacturers totaling around 1 billion dollars from 2020 to 2022.  This has opened the door to what big business it is to be in the peer review business.  People tend to trust information that is associated with an expert opinion.  But the deceit is that when that expert is paid to have an argument that the people writing the checks want them to have, the information is meaningless.  And in the context of the value of helpful information, we are finding that what we assume to be a reality is, in truth, only shaped by those paying for the definition of that reality, which endorses a need they have for mass public opinion to shade in their direction. 

This morning, I had 337,000 unread emails, and about a quarter of those are from people who offer peer review services and want me to pay them for their expert opinion to lend to the credibility of my material.  Or, they want me to review their material and are willing to pay for it.  It is an enormous business, and many people make a lot of money offering nothing more than an opinion, and the fee for being an expert in a field is very valuable.  But I don’t get into that money game for many reasons.  For a long time, I have not trusted peer-reviewed opinions for many reasons.  This recent information from the Weaponizing Anthropology book and this report on the peer review contributions to the top four medical journals has only solidified my opinion.  Which is sad because I would like to see the system work.  I read a lot of information, and I have my trusted sources.  I think the information is more credible when I see their name next to an article or a book.  But that’s how this whole racket got started in the first place.  Trust was for sale, and there were a lot of evil characters in the world willing to exploit it for all kinds of nefarious reasons.  That was indeed happening in the medical field.  And it was happening in large doses in anthropology and archaeology.  Those who pay for an opinion get to shape what that opinion is. 

I think we were a lot better off in the sciences when adventurers through discovery would publish wild finds in a search for fortune and glory.  The idea of profiting off finding a new treasure in the world and becoming rich in the process was more honest than what we have now, where experts are paid to shape an opinion and steer people as sponsored spokespeople toward some treatment that might not be good for them.  A good example is in the diagnosis of diabetes, for instance, where pancreatic health can be self-generated.  However, the medical approach shaped by paid experts wants to steer patients toward pharmaceutical treatments because that’s where the profit is.  The goal is not in saving lives with real and permanent treatment, it’s in keeping people sick so that pharma companies can profit off the demise of those patients.  The ability to purchase a peer-reviewed opinion then shapes reality, not toward the truth but toward the desire of profit seekers at the expense of honesty.  How often have I heard that the Clovis people migrated into North America across the frozen land bridge from Russia to Alaska 20,000 years ago?  When none of the expert opinions can begin to explain why there were such large skeletons found in Indian mounds all over North America from a people with very precise understandings of mathematics, and were certainly not hunters and gatherers, but sophisticated city dwellers, such as at the Cahokia site just outside of St. Louis that had cities larger than what was found in Europe at the time.  Most of that information has been suppressed by the peer review process, and only old-fashioned passion projects from seekers of fortune and glory have been able to shake that information loose from the world.

It has been a house of cards that was always going to fail, and that one billion dollars reported just for those four publications is just the tip of the iceberg.  This same practice is occurring in all our professional fields that produce experts.  Being an expert pays a lot of money once you establish yourself.  And as I said, I get a lot of offers, which I turn down because I don’t like the process, and would never take money for it.  Because I see it all as a huge problem.  These latest reports only confirm what I always suspected.  When you can pay cash to create a truth, can you say that a truth is real?  When opinion is for sale, I don’t see that it has any value.  An expert might work hard to build up credibility to put their name next to something, but the minute people discover that the opinion was purchased, all merit for the contents flies out the window.  That is what the CIA has been doing in the field of anthropology to shape social discourse by controlling the narrative with people on their staff, or with money paid to experts through black budgets not regulated by members of an elected body of government in Congress.  And since many people got caught over the Lancet issue regarding COVID, I don’t think the expert class will ever gain credibility back.  It will take more than time to get people to trust in the system again.  And the peer review process is now broken forever.  And that might lead to wild theories and speculations from a hungry public.  But honestly, that information is more valid than the opinions of people paid to shape a truth that might have no basis in reality.  But it might serve the plots of more scandalous people who do not have our best interests in mind. 

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Critics of the Ark Encounter and the Trump Presidency: A collision of east and western thought

While doing a little research on the Ark Encounter for an article reporting my recent visit there I ran across a number of really disturbing trends which correlate perfectly to the Trump presidency.   It’s no secret that evangelicals supported Donald Trump massively in the last election and that they would continue to be a solidifying electorate base—so obviously the criticism leveled at the type of evangelicals who were behind the Ark Encounter project were the same who wanted to end the Trump presidency with bizarre conspiracy theories and constant small-minded thinking—especially in the example below from the lunatic making fun of not only the Ark Encounter, but the type of people who live in Kentucky.  What we are seeing is a classic battle between traditionalists and the progressives from the coastal territories and the urban viewpoints that their culture is superior from a European mindset, contains all the arrogance which articulates our current crises in America—and they are of course dead wrong.

I am not a “young earth” believer and I see many flaws in the foundation beliefs of the Ark Encounter presentation.   I watched with great effort the great debate at the Ark Encounter between Bill Nye, the Science Guy and the amusement park’s founder, Ken Ham.  My view is that both were functioning from a mythic perspective represented by their two foundational philosophies.  I admired Ken Ham’s passion and his beliefs even though I think there is more evidence that is needed to tell the story.  After all, my father-in-law is a geology professor and I have many friends around the world who are archaeologists, historians, and paleontologists and many of the sciences they are working on is showing that earthly civilizations are much older than 6000 years, that human societies are millions of years old and that a Vico cycle has dominated human thought for many cycles over that time for which the Noah story is all but the most recent one.  But I also reserve the right that everyone might be wrong and that evidence may come forward that shines light in a totally new direction—so from my perspective the stories of these cultures—including our present one provide some of the best insight that we have to work with and serves as a proper starting point for any discussion.  But with Bill Nye—he’s clearly functioning from the European Marxism which has crippled western civilization from the start and the foundation of his entire premise is rooted in global warming being the dominate threat of all mankind.  So as radical as he wants to make Ken Ham out to be for the Ark Encounter’s “young earth” debates both sides are essentially arguing over basic religious views.  The modern progressive is proposing a new religion in earth worship to correct obvious flaws in their traditional thinking and to do that they have to eliminate people like Ken Ham from the discussion to make their own pieces of thought fit and that is why they are so hostile.

I think the Ark Encounter is actually a wonderful place to provoke actual philosophic debate that is badly needed.   I compared it to not only the movie Jurassic Park, but also the Universal Studios attraction which is based on hard science but has many fictional elements added to psychologically tell a story our human minds need to deal with, real philosophical challenges provided by DNA manipulation and other modern concerns,  There is incredible value in that particular modern mythology that cannot be taken factually, but as part of an immersive story.  The Ark Encounter’s value is not in its factual elements—whether Noah built the Ark in 2200 BC and that once all the waters of the world receded from the Biblical flood the vessel ended up on top of Mt Ararat in Turkey.   It’s in the study of good and evil and how decisions on the furtherance of mankind should be articulated in relation to the primal actions of biological urges.   Should human beings allow themselves to be basic primal organisms eating, drinking, and procreating as a blob of cellular activity or should human thinking exceed biological necessity?  As primal as many might blame Ken Ham’s evangelical perspective it is actually the basic foundation which asks the question of mankind—shouldn’t we be more than just a biological mechanism of earth’s many life forms?  If mankind is actually unique in that spectrum and has a special place in a universe created by God on the sixth day of a grand construction project—than shouldn’t we act on an elevated platform?   Such discussion are meant for the temples of the world but at the Ark Encounter Ken Ham has actually revisited the great debates known to Greek society back into the modern world and the effect is quite dramatic—and valuable.  Scholarship shouldn’t be afraid of the truth—because in debating these things, we learn a lot about ourselves and our positions.  The real value isn’t always in the facts which are hard to know when evidence is slow to emerge from science—but the stories that are told contain elements of a hidden truth that our psychology requires to behold advanced concepts beyond the primal necessity of our biological requirements.

As sophisticated as Bill Nye’s reliance on actual science might appear his basic premise is that we live, we die, we leave behind other collective organisms to continue our species—but that humans are not particularly special compared to dogs, cats or ocean animals—and that the greatest threat facing our modern times is man-made global warming.  It is from the Bill Nye type of thinkers that the NASA program was all but shut down in the past and that they don’t want humans thinking too much about themselves intellectually but instead need to find their happy place on planet earth and learn to live there in harmony with nature.   The evolution of this progressive thinking actually comes from medieval Europe where the Christian church proposed by the remnants of the Roman Empire had been adopted by that society which actually came from oriental sentiment considered in India at the time and collided with the individual thinking of the Troubadours and Arthurian romances already in bloom.  The two vantage points never fit together correctly and Europe has been fragmented in its thinking for well over a thousand years now and that essential problem is at the heart of everything concerning conflict between the eastern and western worlds.  The people of the Middle East will admit that they are collectivists so it’s easy for them to submit themselves to angry gods who rule from the heavens.  Eastern societies are also collectivists and will sacrifice their individuality in a moment to the higher powers of celestial involvement.  However Europe was already asking hard questions about the role of the individual soul well before Roman brought that eastern religion of Christianity to its empire and people didn’t agree, and they still don’t leaving us with a very fragmented religious element that still desires to put the individual at the front of thought while the collective nature of all religion seeks to remain the superior force.

The critics of The Ark Encounter fail because they essentially insist that the new religion of earth worship be the dominate bond that unites America with the rest of the world in “progressive” thought.  Their religion is actually one that the Nazi movement was based heavily on—a kind of Celtic reinvention from a time before the Roman Empire used Christianity to unit its empire with common thought.  But, the Celtics were not the Troubadours so there are factions of people who uniquely professed to the world that individuality was important and that our souls were special in the role of the universe—that God would have Noah be the keeper of the world’s animals and that he alone with his three sons and their wives would save all mankind on earth for another round on the Vico cycle.  To me it’s a story that says a lot more than history can put its finger on at the moment.  To others it is the path to eternal life to harbor their individual souls spiritually.  To others it’s a threat to that classic European problem—an eastern religion mixed with western thought to provide so much conflict and pain, that ancient religions long destroyed by the Roman Empire are still desired behind the mask of “earth worship.”

What’s important is the discussions that pour forth and who would have ever known that little Williamstown, Kentucky would be such a center for philosophic discussion.  It’s not New York or Chicago or even London that is the center of modern debate such as Athens served in the past—but a little exit along I-75 where Ken Ham built a massive recreation of Noah’s Ark and invited debate on a campus designed to spark discussion.   That is the aspect to all this that is beautiful and those who don’t want the debate—but just want to lazily accept the conclusions of religions that came before us as fact of course don’t want those debates to occur—just as they don’t want Donald Trump to Make America Great Again.  They just want to live, die, and be forgotten so that the Earth can live its life as a celestial sphere only to eventually die itself as the sun runs out of fuel and the universe will never know that we ever had a human race that thought, built and contemplated new ways of thinking aside from the inherit violence of a universe expanding, contracting, and dying itself for reasons that defy reasoning.  At least at the Ark Encounter there is a defined purpose for living that is presented and that maybe the greatest threat of all.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg