Tuesday, 26 May 2015

Lies, Damned Lies, and Censorship - Archaeology Today!

Over the last four years since the publishing of my first book ‘The Stonehenge Enigma’ I have learnt much, including how to write in a style that suits my needs and not academia.

One of the most amazing lessons of this period was the intransigent nature of our institutions and academic universities that lead archaeological studies. Not only have they tried to ignore my research at first they then ‘censored’ my work by not allowing paid adverts in their journals and periodicals. They claim it's down to the practice of 'peer-review', but the truth is that they do not want you to know the truth or had their judgement questioned.

Failed to report the 'Patch marks' at Avebury and told the advertising staff that  they 'refused to discuss the subject'
Censorship issues
Refused my paid advertisements and failed to report the 'Patches' at Avebury

Recently in my investigations of ancient sites, I have found clear archaeological evidence in the form of ‘patch marks’ over a hill overlooking Avebury, which would suggest a Stone Avenue that preceded the famous West Kennet Avenue. The established institutions were all sent the press releases with all the relevant details that such a major finding should include, but they decided not to inform their membership or readers of this discovery.

Such blind censorship does nothing for the science of archaeology. Even if they disagree with my interpretation of these patch marks, the fact they existed and was not reported clearly shows that any evidence that does not support the current establishment theories or ideas is suppressed. Fortunately, social media is now available to spread such discoveries, and half a million people viewed the Daily Mail article, and thousands visited my web site to view the animation of this Stone Avenue.

Now I understand that the establishment does not like the fact that ‘Prehistoric Britain’ trilogy re-writes world history and how we perceived the past and therefore, by its very nature many would be difficult to accept. For how can the academic institutions get it so wrong with such a resource and staffing?

It is a simple question, which unfortunately has a complicated answer. However, I’m not the first to question the integrity of our establishment, well known journalists and editors have started to ask such direct questions such as Richard Horton, Editor In Chief Of World’s Best-Known Medical Journal - The Lancet, who wrote in April 2015: 

Richard Horton
Richard Horton

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

And he is not the only dissenting voice in academia. Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two-time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994) had also been writing on this subject:
Censorship issues
Linus Pauling

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

Fortunately, Pauling goes on to tell us why the institutions are lying to us and peddling this nonsense propaganda

“When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there is a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.”

And in the field of Medicine, this can have disastrous consequences.

“Fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical. It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.”

So is this man deluded or a fraud and why have you not heard or seen this evidence before – remembering this is a two-time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry?

George Orwell

It’s all to do with money and control.  “Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.” ― George Orwell, 1984

But this is just two prominent academics who have spoken out on this subject there are many more such as Professor John P. A. Ioannidis:
John Ioannids

"False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.

The problem begins with the public’s rising expectations of science. Being human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do. The number of investigators—and the number of experiments, observations and analyses they produce—has also increased exponentially in many fields, but adequate safeguards against bias are lacking. Research is fragmented, competition is fierce and emphasis is often given to single studies instead of the big picture.

Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of truth. Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. In health care, research is often performed at the behest of companies that have a large financial stake in the results. Even for academics, success often hinges on publishing positive findings. The oligopoly of high-impact journals also has a distorting effect on funding, academic careers and market shares. Industry tailors research agendas to suit its needs, which also shapes academic priorities, journal revenue and even public funding.

The crisis should not shake confidence in the scientific method. The ability to prove something false continues to be a hallmark of science. But scientists need to improve the way they do their research and how they disseminate evidence."

Bauerlein et al. (2010) claim that we are currently experiencing an ‘avalanche of low-quality research’, and academia has become an environment where ‘aspiring researchers are turned into publish-or-perish entrepreneurs, often becoming more or less cynical about the higher ideals of the pursuit of knowledge’. Whether the current state of affairs is better or worse than before, it seems reasonable to assume that corner-cutting is an unfortunate side effect of publication pressure and competition for academic positions and scarce resources, especially in milieus where counting publications is more important than reading and evaluating them. 

In his book Derailed, about his fall from academic grace, the Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel explained his preferred method for manipulating scientific data in detail that would make any nerd's jaw drop:

Censorship issues
Diederik Stapel
"I preferred to do it at home, late in the evening... I made myself some tea, put my computer on the table, took my notes from my bag, and used my fountain pen to write down a neat list of research projects and effects I had to produce.... Subsequently I began to enter my own data, row for row, column for column...3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 4, 5, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2. When I was finished, I would do the first analyses. Often, these would not immediately produce the right results. Back to the matrix and alter data. 4, 6, 7, 5, 4, 7, 8, 2, 4, 4, 6, 5, 6, 7, 8, 5, 4. Just as long until all analyses worked out as planned."

In 2011, when Stapel was suspended over research fraud allegations, he was a rising star in social psychology at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He had conducted attention-grabbing experiments on social behaviour, looking at, for example, whether litter in an environment encouraged racial stereotyping and discrimination. Yet that paper — and at least 55 others, as well as 10 dissertations written by students he supervised — were built on falsified data.

If you perpetuate a lie in academia it spreads like wild-fire as the 'peer-review' system accepts it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - except its a lie!

So those (non-academics) who dare question the establishment, they are banished into a self-protectionist oblivion – or the establishment tries to discredit their work and make it disappear. As Gandhi once warned the world: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”


This second book in the trilogy 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' (out in the Autumn) is my ‘fight back’ – I will not be silenced, and the truth of about humanity and who built our ancient monuments will be known.  

No comments:

Post a comment