“Nerds Against Humanity” – the So-Called “March for Science”…

“Science” in American Universities is Very Much Like Professional Wrestling.  It is Just a Show…

Opinion by “Deplorable” Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen


If someone were to offer a hundred million dollar Grant to prove that the Earth was flat seven hundred (700)  University Presidents would be submitting proposals the next morning.  “Science” is for sale.

It’s been like that for a very long time.

American Universities are a huge welfare system for pompous, over-educated, nose-in-the-air nitwits, with little, if any, common sense, and an almost pathological desire to wear an outfit with matching belt and the right shoes – and those are the men.

Conformity, in University, is required. Conformity is NOT what we want in science.  We need innovation.  Our American University “Science” programs are absolutely worthless – a malignant bureaucracy.

Should We Trust the 2017 Version of Scientists?

Absolutely not.  They are the VERY LAST PEOPLE we should be listening to.  Look at the “Climate Change” pack of lies – a massive four-billion dollar-a-day delusion designed to effect a specific social engineering plan – Agenda 21.

Those of us in health care activism see a far worse scenario. What could THAT be?

The University “Scientist”…

In the University “Conformity of thought” is required – I will give you a simple example just below using the National Institute of Health (NIH) Grant/Contract system as the model.

The NIH is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) network, right alongside of the CDC and FDA.  They are subject to the same outside pressures inflicted on the CDC and FDA – control by Big Pharma.

So much for independent scientific investigation.  That ain’t gonna happen with the NIH.  If you want a Grant drop your scientific pants – here comes Big Pharma – sans Vaseline.

But, the NIH will pay off those pesky Student Loans for you…

Universities DEPEND on Grants to keep their labs open. According to National Public Radio (NPR) “Grants are the lifeblood of university research.”

The reality of University Grant Funding…

But it is ALL about conforming to “The Golden Rule” – he who has the gold makes the rule.

You can be absolutely certain that the NIH, under Obama, would NEVER fund any studies that would actually look at the relationship between vaccines and Autism.  NOT EVER.

In fact, if you look carefully, there is nothing but drug studies, benefitting drug companies.  Are you surprised?


Of Course There Are Those “Climate Change” Programs…

Or should we say “There WERE those climate change programs…”  Trump is cutting all that crap out of the US BUDGET.

According to Breitbart’s James Delingpole in his well written article “Climate Change: the Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day…”:

“The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or — as Jo Nova notes — it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping

When, on the other hand, you buy stuff from the climate change industry, you have no choice in the matter whatsoever. It’s already priced into your taxes, your electricity bills, the cost of your petrol, the cost of your airfare, the cost of every product you buy and every service you use. It is utterly inescapable, this expenditure. Yet unlike your online shopping — which, remember, costs roughly the same as you spend each year on the climate change industry — you get precisely nothing in return.

In general, American Academia is Pathetic – Not Worthy of Respect…

In an interesting article in “The Atlantic” Jennie Rothenberg Gritz writes “What’s Wrong With the American University System?”.

There she interviews book authors Queens College in New York Professor Emeritus Andrew Hacker and  his coauthor, New York Times writer Claudia Dreifus about their book “Higher Education?” 

Hacker and Dreifus tell it like it is.  I advise everyone to read Gritz’s entire article from the link above.  In short, they say:

“The question mark in our title,” they write, “is the key to this book.” To their minds, little of what takes place on college campuses today can be considered either “higher” or “education.” They blame a system that favors research over teaching and vocational training over liberal arts. Tenure, they argue, does anything but protect intellectual freedom.”

The problem is that there are just too many publications and too many people publishing. This is true even in the hard sciences. If there’s a research project on genetics in a lab, they will take certain findings and break them into eight different articles just so each researcher can get more stuff on his or her resume.

And many of the publications are too long. A book on Virginia Woolf could be a 30-page article. Somebody did a count of how many publications had been written on Virginia Woolf in the past 15 years. The answer is several thousand. Really? Who needs this? But it’s awfully difficult to say, “Here’s knowledge we don’t need!” It sounds like book burning, doesn’t it? What we’d say is that on the scale of priorities, we find undergraduate teaching to be more important than all the research being done.

But the REALLY revealing part of their book says:

“How much really valuable research is being done on cancer? When I was at Cornell, Congress announced that they were going to pour a lot of money into cancer research. So a memo went out to the Cornell professors—not just in the sciences, mind you—saying, “Can you take your current research and cancerize it?” There’s a lot of that going on. So sociology professors decided to research cancer communications, and so on.

Sabbatical – Catch some rays, smoke some weed, have the graduate student put some sunscreen on the back, while “working on the book…”

And then there’s the whole issue of sabbaticals. Right now, about half a million academics—assistant, associate, and full professors—are eligible for sabbaticals.

At Harvard and Yale, senior professors get every third year off, not every seventh. This coming year—are you ready for this?—20 of the 48 professors in Harvard’s history department will be on leave.

They’re expected to take that time away and have a publication come out of it. Even if a professor goes off to Tuscany, he says, “I’m taking my manuscript with me and revising it there.” We don’t need that many new publications. We absolutely don’t.”

So, Why Was There a “March for Science?”

Because, quite simply, Americans are tired of the elitist bullshit, and give University “Scientists” the same level of credibility as Mainstream Media.  And the “Nerds” are marching, demanding that we listen to them, and do what they say…

We’ve had 66,000 factories close in the US since Bill Clinton’s NAFTA treaty went into effect, Veterans get crap medical care, Illegal Alien Drug Lords and Human Traffickers live in protected “Sanctuary Cities,” and Universities are the CENTER of the Agenda 21 assault on America – while 20 of the 48 professors in Harvard’s history department will be on paid sabbatical.”

Yeah, let’s listen to these people.  What could possibly go wrong?

Insert laughter here…

And, stay tuned…

Opinion by “Deplorable” Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

7 thoughts on ““Nerds Against Humanity” – the So-Called “March for Science”…”

  1. In 1970 I attended the First National Congress on Population and Environment, with mostly scientifically-trained people. I was impressed by how the scientists abandoned their scientific training when they went into policy analysis, and resorted to intuitive leaps that they then tried to justify with seemingly scientific reasoning. I was coming from a background in computer systems, so was skeptical of this kind of unsystematic thinking. So was Jay Forrester, of MIT, who wrote “The Counterintuitive behavior of Social Systwms”. http://constitution.org/ps/cbss.pdf I subsequently tried to leaven the more extreme analyses with doses of systems analysis.
    See http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2017/01/how-global-warming-is-misunderstood.html

  2. It’s all really a show just like the short-lived “Misfits of Science” was, only this time it’s to rope in more of our tax dollars for more preposterous schemes. We should have a rally to combat the abuses of science, specifically through the ritualistic torture of children and adults with chemicals and radiation. It’s been a full hundred years since Rockefeller and Flexner engineered the takeover of American medicine, with a propaganda assault designed to convince generations that industrial waste is actually medical treatment! So we have a lot of work to overthrow that. Let’s start by getting rid of the subsidies for processed foods, and instead have tax incentives to grow foods without all those chemicals. Then maybe Bill Nye will take off his tie and help us dig up all the fresh new produce!

  3. It is likely no will claim it. It is much more expensive to prove something safe than to prove it is dangerous. Probably more than the amount of the prize.

  4. US Academia is REALLY WORRIED about Trump – and they should be.

    My article was primarily about the selling of science, and the uselessness of the NIH’s ability to fund useful research.


    Because, behind the scenes there is a HUGE war going on with Big Pharma trying to block Trump’s appointees in health care positions.

    They have realized what Trump is up to.

    We, here at the BolenReport, know what is happening – and we will tell you about it ONE THING AT A TIME.

    You are going to LOVE Elissa Meininger’s next piece on the FDA. She will explain every detail of the behind the scenes thinking.

    Sell your pharmaceutical stock…

    Tim Bolen

  5. There is a larger problem of how do we get sound advice on scientific policy. We do want our scientific policy advisers to be scientifically trained. But not everyone with scientific training is qualified to advise on scientific policy. Credentials and positions are not the evidence we need for such qualification.

    Recall the example of physicist Richard Feynman. After the Challenger disaster he was asked to try to find the cause. He put some of the sealant used in the engines in cold water, and it crumbled. Very simple experiment, and it provided the answer. No one else thought to do that. He was the only one to find the answer. He not only had deep scientific insight and analytic ability, but the talent for applying it to complex policy problems.

    I also have scientific training, and could offer scientific policy advice, but I don’t have the credentials. No one is going to listen to anything I might say. But I can cut through the bullshit and see through to the larger questions. Not everyone can do that.

  6. I remember not so long ago that Eugenics was proclaimed to be based on “Science” and was hawked by the same corporate media and celebrity whores that now hawk corporate “Science”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.