Canada: scientists' right to free speech shut down
Canada catching up to USA re suppression of science
by Jon Rappoport
May 21, 2015
(To read about Jon's mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, go here.)
"'Government science' has become an oxymoron. A better label would be Manufactured Reality. Does a mega-corporation need the seal of approval for its toxic crimes? There is a government agency on tap to provide it. Need fake science? You've got it. Need to pay a fine instead of going to prison? No problem. Whole worlds will be invented to cover up a few devastating facts." (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Free speech for government scientists in Canada? The ability to issue warnings about public health and safety to the press and public?
No. The scientists work for federal agencies, and only the designated spokespeople for those agencies can make public statements.
I'll have some comments about my own experiences in this area, but first...
Here are shocking quotes about a Canadian survey of federal scientists - "Most Federal Scientists Feel They Can't Speak Out, Even If Public Health and Safety at Risk, Says New Survey."
The survey was carried out by a group called PIPSC, which states:
"A major survey of federal government scientists commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) has found that 90% feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about the work they do and that, faced with a departmental decision that could harm public health, safety or the environment, nearly as many (86%) would face censure or retaliation for doing so [for speaking out]."
"The survey, the findings of which are included in a new report titled The Big Chill, is the first extensive effort to gauge the scale and impact of 'muzzling' and political interference among federal scientists since the Harper government introduced communications policies requiring them to seek approval before being interviewed by journalists."
"In particular, the survey also found that nearly one-quarter (24%) of respondents [federal scientists] had been directly asked to exclude or alter information for non-scientific reasons and that over one-third (37%) had been prevented in the past five years from responding to questions from the public and media."
"According to the survey, nearly half (48%) are aware of actual cases in which their department or agency suppressed [scientific] information, leading to incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading impressions by the public, industry and/or other government officials."
What sorts of issues are off-limits for Canadian federal scientists? It's not hard to figure that out: pesticide toxicity; pollution dangers; dangerous medical drugs. You know, areas where the profits of big industry would be threatened.
This destruction of free speech cuts close to home for me, because once upon a time I had considerable access to government (and university) scientists in the US.
In 1987-8, I was writing my first book, "AIDS Inc.: Scandal of the Century." My first order of business was fleshing out the official scenario about AIDS; what caused the syndrome, and what was being done to treat it.
I had press accounts, of course, but I wanted explanations from the horse's mouth.
Later on, after I was convinced the official scenario was built on egregious scientific fraud, I wanted to have conversations with the scientists who were either party to the fraud or were irrationally going along with it.
During a six-month period, I was able to speak with several researchers at the US National Institutes of Health, the center of AIDS research.
It was easy. I contacted a press person by phone, said I was writing a book about AIDS, and I was transferred to the office of the researcher I was looking for. The scientist and I spoke, sometimes at length.
Keep in mind that I had no press credential. I was writing the book for a very small start-up publisher. Up to that time, I had worked as a freelance reporter (for five years), writing pieces for papers and magazines in the US and Europe.
During this six-month period, I was also able to speak with an employee at the FDA, who turned around and sent me a crucial piece of information proving the vast unreliability of HIV blood tests.
I spoke with a key researcher at Harvard, who explained that the green-monkey hypothesis of HIV transmission, touted in the press, was overblown.
I spoke a number of times to a press person at the CDC. Depending on my question, he would either pass me along to a CDC researcher or dig up the answer himself and call me back. It became obvious to him, after a time, that I was in the process of debunking the whole notion that HIV caused AIDS. Yet, he continued to talk to me and get answers to my queries.
I had a number of fruitful conversations with Dr. Harvey Bialy, the scientific editor at the journal, Nature/Biotechnology. Harvey didn't accept the HIV causation model of AIDS, and we clarified many points.
Even when fear was in the air, I was able to obtain statements off the record from scientists. For example, a highly respected virologist at UCLA told me that "many of us know the HIV-causation model of AIDS is riddled with holes, but we're going to let this one pass. It's dangerous to speak out..."
I was not alone in my ability to gain access to government/university scientists and editors of journals. Chuck Ortleb, who was publishing a small NY paper, New York Native, spoke with Robert Gallo and directly challenged Gallo on his purported discovery that HIV caused AIDS.
John Lauritsen, an independent reporter, managed to attend several professional AIDS conferences, where he confirmed that the government's approval of toxic AZT to treat AIDS was based on a fraudulent clinical trial.
How things have changed.
These days, if you're lucky enough to get through to a knowledgeable press person at a federal agency, you're fed pap, or stonewalled, or referred to some online source of official information.
No federal scientist would risk his career speaking out of school to a freelance reporter who has a dissenting point of view.
It's the big chill, the shutdown, the close-out. No comment. We have nothing to say. Look for an official release from our department on this issue. Consult our guidelines. We'll try to get back to you.
To say official science has become politicized is a vast understatement. Science is politics, when it needs to be, and it needs to be much of the time.
The crimes that chemical/pharmaceutical/genetic-engineering/agriculture corporations defend, in their operations, in their methods, are often defended in the findings of government science.
It's an embrace of mob brothers.
This is one reason why court cases against such corporations are shunned by many lawyers. The fix is in on the science, and that in itself creates a non-starter.
The government witnesses (researchers) can say, "Corporation X is doing no harm. Our studies show that actions ABCD and products EFGH are safe and pose no risk."
Behind it all: "Well, Mr. CEO, on your behalf we've proved the moon is composed of green cheese, there are mosquitoes on Mars, and Roundup makes a delicious salad dressing. Anything else you need? We, the government, are here to serve you and strengthen our national economy."
If this makes you wonder about the trustworthiness of government science agencies, when it comes to issues such as vaccine safety or GMO-food safety, it should.
Take the case of whistleblower William Thompson. A long-time vaccine researcher at the CDC, Thompson admitted, last August, in a written statement published at his attorney Rick Morgan's website, that he and his co-authors violated the protocol on an MMR vaccine/autism study in 2004, cooked the data, and thereby concluded the vaccine had no link to autism.
Since that time, Thompson, who still works for the CDC, has refused to talk to the press. Speculation arose that there might be a Congressional hearing where he would testify.
But nothing has happened.
Why the need for a hearing? Why hasn't the DOJ/FBI simply corralled Thompson and interviewed him extensively? He claims to have evidence of a serious federal crime.
The answer is obvious. CDC science is based on the predetermined premise that vaccines are safe and effective. In other words, it's not science.
There are vaccine manufacturers to protect. The CDC itself purchases billions of dollars of vaccines.
When storm clouds gather, federal agencies circle the wagons, hunker down, and wait out the threat.
Whistleblower Thompson spoke out of turn. He has been superseded by his agency bosses, who claim there is no problem.
In general, the ladder of power climbs from researcher, to researcher's government agency, to the corporations that agency is safeguarding.
The dream team.
If you like nightmares.
Jon Rappoport The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com and OutsideTheRealityMachine.