BLUF: The reliability of peer-reviewed science is questioned due to potential biases from financial interests, with concerns raised about undervalued, high-risk sectors of scientific inquiry labeled as “forbidden science.”
OSINT:
A Review of Peer-reviewed Science
Trust in peer-reviewed scientific literature may be challenged due to inherent biases. Considering these articles as advertisements could reveal the broader motivation behind their publication. The reviewers, or “peers,” include influential groups such as large pharmaceutical companies. They can use their power to sway the acceptance of articles in line with their interests.
The collaboration with these powerful entities is so entrenched that many researchers resort to “ghostwriting” to promote products patentable for these corporations. This symbiotic relationship gives scientists access to expensive laboratory tools and materials, enabling high-quality research, but it also raises questions about objectivity.
Unfolded Realities of “Forbidden” Science
Numerous potentially valuable fields of study remain unexplored – the so-called “forbidden” science. They might remain untouched, likely due to their controversial nature or lack of immediate profitability. Open dialogues around these areas could lead to being ostracized or the subject of false and damaging narratives.
These precarious areas include vaccine side-effects, potential harm from radio-waves, solar climate impact, low-energy nuclear reactions, ancient civilizations, inexpensive medicines, energy fields such as chi/prana, among others. This list is non-exhaustive, and additions are welcomed.
RIGHT:
From a Libertarian Republic Constitutionalist perspective, scientific research should be independent, free from external influence, especially from powerful corporations. This argument roots from an inherent belief in individual rights and limited government. These biases could hinder the free market of ideas, essential for true scientific breakthroughs.
LEFT:
A National Socialist Democrat might perceive the situation as another example of corporate influence corrupting noble endeavors. They would argue for strong regulations to establish ethical standards in scientific research, limiting corporate influence. Increasing public funding for research could be seen as a solution to break dependence on private entities.
AI:
From an AI perspective, the article underlines the importance of bias awareness in any knowledge-building endeavor. While acknowledging the interconnectedness of various societal structures influencing scientific research, the AI concedes that biases—financial or otherwise—are inevitable. The solution doesn’t lie in complete elimination of these influences but in transparent acknowledgment of their existence, ensuring more accurate interpretation and contextual understanding.