Scientists Now Testing ‘Vaccine’ to ‘Inoculate’ People Against Climate Change Denial(Erase Bad Memories?)

WAKE UP!

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Scientists_Now_Testing_%E2%80%98Vaccine%E2%80%99_to_%E2%80%98Inoculate%E2%80%99_People_Against_Climate_Change_Denial/59086/0/38/38/Y/M.html



Scientists Now Testing ‘Vaccine’ to ‘Inoculate’ People Against Climate Change Denial
Published: June 12, 2017

Source: Matt Agorist

Two preliminary studies were recently conducted to test the effects of ‘inoculating’ people against believing a certain way in regards to climate change. The studies were carried out as a means of combating the existing information and disinformation that challenges the scientific consensus over the risks of climate change — using information ‘vaccines.’
A recent report from Vox, titled, Scientists are testing a “vaccine” against climate change denial, makes the case for these inoculation procedures to help people be more prone to accept facts instead of holding mistaken beliefs.
On the surface, this sounds wonderful. However, if we look at it from a scientific stance — applying scrutiny and skepticism — it becomes quite worrisome.
It is important to note that while we have scientists on our staff, no one here at the Free Thought Project is a climate scientist. For this reason, the Free Thought Project will not attempt to deny the human element in climate change nor will we attempt to purport the exact effect humans have on climate change.
However, to understand the disquieting nature of a program that inoculates young people against their natural tendencies of skepticism — one need not be an expert in the field of climate science.
As Vox reports, psychologists have known for decades that people are more resistant to misinformation if they’re warned about it beforehand. Teens who are warned about the dangers of smoking are less likely to succumb to their friends’ arguments in favor of it; people who are warned about pro-sugar campaigns by soda companies are less likely to fall for them. These “inoculation messages” can even work retroactively, changing the minds of those who have already been influenced by misinformation.
The idea of arming people with facts to combat misinformation is, indeed, a noble one. After all, who wants people to succumb to fake science or fake news because some group is deliberately lying to them to promote their agenda?
Both of these studies, Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence and Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change, are entirely noble in purpose.
The intent of these studies is not an immediate issue. The issue arises, however, when we look at the unintended consequences of ‘inoculating’ people into thinking a certain way simply because there is a consensus on an issue.
A scientific consensus is not to be easily discounted. Thousands of people all coming to similar conclusions through varying applications of the scientific method is a powerful means of explaining and understanding our environment and presence on this planet and in the universe. Coming to a consensus allows humanity to make better decisions about fostering a more sustainable future and helps us figure out how to progress as a species.
That being said, the collective is often dangerously — and deadly — wrong. Do not mistake this for a stance on climate change. Whether or not humans contribute to the effects of climate change is a moot point for the purpose of this issue. However, indoctrinating people to unquestioningly accept that it is a fact, through various means of information manipulation — known as “inoculation messages” — in these studies, can and will have damning consequences.
While the intent of the ‘inoculation’ is to help forward an idea that may be beneficial to the betterment of mankind, seeking to eliminate those who question everything — even the consensus — is chilling.
The effect of this process appears to inoculate people’s skepticism. Even if that skepticism is wrong, it is quite possibly the most necessary function of the scientific process. After all, science does not set out to prove — it sets out to disprove.
Without people questioning our very reality, science would likely still be stuck in the stone ages.
This inoculation method sets out to grow the herd of consensus, simply by convincing people that doing anything but unquestioningly accepting the consensus is wrong.
“Consensus messages don’t ask people to change their beliefs — they ask them to change their opinion about what other people believe, so they’re not a direct threat to their identity,” says Sander van der Linden, a psychology professor at Cambridge, who has also tested the strength of inoculation messages and who published the second study mentioned above.
Once people view the consensus as non-threatening, they will readily accept the science on the matter. Seems harmless enough, right?
Well, it does if you haven’t studied history at all.
Eugenics, the ‘science’ of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics, is a dark stain on humanity’s past and it was a consensus.
While most people associate it with Adolf Hitler and his movement to create a supreme race in Nazi Germany, the fact is that eugenics sciences began in the 1860s. By Hitler’s time, it was a consensus among many that the human population could be improved through selective breeding and the horrific treatment of people deemed ‘inferior’ by science.
One need only look at its horrid implementation and practice to see the gruesome reality of following a consensus that is dead wrong.
Eugenics is a prime example of how the scientific consensus can be manipulated and misused to support unscrupulous ends.
While eugenics is an extreme version of the consensus gone awry, consider the Hungarian doctor, Ignaz Semmelweis, as another example.
Semmelweis wanted to figure out why so many women in maternity wards were dying from puerperal fever — commonly known as childbed fever.
Through a long period of trial and error, Semmelweis hypothesized that washing one’s hands could help reduce childbed fever and save lives. This was before the science was clear on germs and Semmelweis had only come to this theory based on observations.
When Semmelweis implemented the practice of doctors washing their hands with chlorine prior to delivering babies in the maternity ward, the rate of childbed fever fell — dramatically.
However, what happened next serves to illustrate the dangerous nature of a consensus unwilling to change. While Semmelweis is now credited with saving lives by implementing hand-washing, things were far different back in his day.
After his hand-procedure began saving countless lives, doctors became angry at Semmelweis because they thought he made it look like they were the ones making the babies sick. Eventually, all the doctors stopped washing their hands and went back to their normal routine. The consensus won — it was wrong — and people died.
For years, Semmelweiss would try to convince people that washing their hands saved lives but it was futile. The more he challenged the status quo — even showing proof of saving lives — Semmelweiss was chastised and cast out of the scientific community.
But casting him out of the scientific community was just the start. For challenging the consensus with truth, Semmelweis was committed to a mental asylum.
While the details of his death aren’t 100 percent known, it is believed that he was beaten in the asylum and he died an ironic death from sepsis — one of the same diseases he fought so hard to prevent through the washing of hands.
While Semmelweiss was alive, there was no such thing as ‘consensus messages’ or information inoculations. However, had there been such a thing, rest assured, that he would’ve never attempted to challenge the status quo — despite being heavily ridiculed and shunned — and the idea of washing hands could still be a ‘conspiracy theory’ today.
What the above two examples illustrate is the nature of science and its tendency to resist being proven wrong. While it is entirely noble to want to inoculate people to disinformation, sometimes that ‘disinformation’ is actually truth. Without the crazies in the peanut gallery keeping scientists and the consensus on their A-game, reality is not challenged and disinformation can become mainstream.
In the words of the late great George Carlin, humanity would do well to always “Question Everything.”

Share This Article...

http://www.blacklistednews.com/You_Won%E2%80%99t_Believe_What_They_Admitted_On_TV_News_In_1971/59095/0/38/38/Y/M.html

You Won’t Believe What They Admitted On TV News In 1971
Published: June 12, 2017

Source: Truth Stream Media

If the government discovered contaminants in vaccines that would directly lead to cancer… they’d pull them off the market right? …. Right??
You won’t believe the news clips below…
https://youtu.be/yfaAtdTgBGk

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-hardware-update-for-the-human-brain-1496660400

A Hardware Update for the Human Brain

From Silicon Valley startups to the U.S. Department of Defense, scientists and engineers are hard at work on a brain-computer interface that could turn us into programmable, debuggable machines

By
Christopher Mims
June 5, 2017 7:00 a.m. ET
EMILY BORGHARD has a computer inside her skull, but you wouldn’t know it to look at her. A small bump behind her left ear, the only external evidence of her implant, is partially covered by a tuft of hair that’s still growing in from the last time she had the batteries changed.
Before Borghard received a brain implant, she was having as many as 400 “spikes” of seizure-like activity a day, along with multiple seizures. This unrelenting storm of abnormal neural activity turned her teenage years into a semiconscious...
To Read the Full Story

http://www.activistpost.com/2017/06/scientists-working-enzyme-capable-deleting-bad-memories.html


Scientists Working On An Enzyme Capable Of Deleting Bad Memories

TOPICS:Consciousnessmind controlPaul PhilipsScience

June 11, 2017
By Paul A. Philips
Scientists have discovered an enzyme in the brain involved in memory formation, particularly with long-term memories. Are there any bad memories you want to get rid of? The scientists believe that those with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) or other memory-related afflictions can be treated by targeting an enzyme to delete bad memories.
At face value this may sound fine and well, but those frequenting the alternative media may be experiencing a red light warning right now: Could this form of memory hijacking be used for a number of dark ulterior motives? (More on this later.)
After a learnt experience, the enzyme, named ACSS2 (acetyl-CoA synthetase 2), plays a part in maintaining or forming old/new memories through its involvement with switching on memory genes located at the brain cell’s nucleus. Consequently, the switched on memory genes controls the restructuring of the synapse, a place where one brain cell meets another. Proteins are then made at the restructured synapse for forming memories…
Scientists found by experiment that reduced levels of the ACSS2 enzyme in mice lowered memory gene expression. As a result, these mice manipulated with the low levels of this enzyme could not form long-term memories: In an experiment, mice with lower enzyme levels displayed disinterest in a ball, unlike the previous day when they had normal levels and showed interest.  The control mice always with normal levels showed interest in the ball throughout the experiment.
In light of this research, scientists are looking at preventing memory formation with humans by the blocking ACSS2 enzyme levels in the brain. This will prevent the preservation and formation of bad memories in people suffering with PTSD, depression and anxiety.

Mind control

As mentioned earlier, it may sound fine and well, but could also have dark and sinister implications:
Could this become one of the many mind control technologies used covertly by sinister governmental agencies such the CIA? (Maybe it’s already being used to erase memories of black ops atrocities…)
It could be used as a weapon on our consciousness and free will.  For example, let’s say you’re an investigative journalist having anti-New World Order objections. In an investigation, you could uncover major damming evidence indicating vaccine damage cover-up… However, you could have your memories on this deleted, leaving you unable to report your findings, which indeed, allows the perpetrators you would have exposed to get away with it.
Sure, there are countless possibilities where, for convenience, your memories relating to anti-NWO objection could be deleted.

Flaws

Some might say that the enzyme treatment is superfluous because there are a number of successful therapies used for PTSD, depression and anxiety. This includes cognitive behaviour related psychotherapy and healing touch treatment using guided imagery…
Bad memory deletion could be a mistake. Remember the old adage: If you don’t learn from history (in this case don’t remember) then you could be destined to repeat the same mistakes. For example, you could invite a deadly enemy in for tea, having had your bad memories related to this individual deleted!
The enzyme treatment is based on the assumption that all memories are in the brain. According to Rupert Sheldrake, as part of science’s unwillingness to address consciousness, this is a major false assumption.
Finally
Maybe if many of those soldiers suffering from PTSD had found out that the wars were fake and had been secretly manufactured by the ruling elite for power, profit and political gain, then they would not have bad memories . . . because they would have refused to fight in those wars.
You can read more from Paul A. Philips at his site NewParadigm.ws

I did not...I repeat I did not read this article but man....did the headline make me laugh out loud!