As cold fusion events demonstrate, modern science is ruled by conformity

Medicine Science ^ | August 29, 2011 | Posted by aksell

[Kevmo]

As cold fusion events demonstrate, modern science is ruled by conformity, not the search for scientific truth
Posted by aksell on August 29, 2011


I’ve often wondered why it is that conventionally trained medical doctors are so reluctant to venture outside the limited thinking of conventional medicine. Why are they hesitant to adopt new ideas and new theoretical models for the underlying causes of human health or disease? I think I have at least a partial answer to this question: Doctors only succeed in medical school or in acquiring publication of their studies when they conform with the views and beliefs of their peers. In other words, becoming a successfuldoctorin today’s political-medical environment requires being a conformist. People who are independent thinkers are filtered out of the process early on .

If you challenge thebeliefsof your professors in med school, they’re going to fail you. If you challenge your mentors during residencytraining, they are not going to support your continued training. If you challenge the beliefs of your peers in thescientific community, you are not going to get published. This is how today’s system ofconventional medicine(“scientific medicine”) suppresses the emergence of new ideas and new theories that could produce true breakthroughs in our understanding of health,medicine, science and thenatureof the universe .

Thesciencethat’s published in medical and scientific journals today may indeed be solid science, but it in no way represents all of the goodscientific researchbeing conducted today. There are independent thinkers,scientists, pioneers and outright scientific rebels who are doing extraordinaryresearch, yet never get published. Even worse, their research gets systematically ridiculed by the old school guardians of the scientificcommunity. One of the most obvious examples of this is the team of Fleischmann and Pons, who are, of course, the fathers of “cold fusion,” which is now better known as “low-energy nuclear reactions.”

The systematic discrediting of cold fusion
Cold fusion is still laughed at by people in the mainstream who are too ignorant to realize that cold fusionexperimentsare being replicated and conducted in laboratories all around the world this very minute, most notably in Japan. Low-energy nuclear reactions are quite real. These reactions, which use a palladium catalyst and heavywater, are being used to generate excess heat in laboratories as you read this. In other words, cold fusion is quite real .

If you think back to 1989 and look at the way this issue was suppressed, you realize that the credibility of cold fusion was destroyed by scientists who had career and ego investments in the theories ofhot fusion. These were scientists who had published papers or invested their careers in multi-billion dollar experiments trying to generate free electricity from hot fusion. Thus, the idea that two chemists could create cold fusion with a tabletop experiment was viewed as outrageous. Rather than examining theevidencewith an open mind and try to understand and replicate what was going on, they sought to destroy it .

This ego-fueledsuppressionof cold fusion was quite successful, to the point where, today, if you mention cold fusion to anyone who is steeped in conventional medicine or science, they will laugh at you and say, “Cold fusion is a joke, just like medicalquackery.” But of course, the big joke is on them, because cold fusion does indeed exist, and it has been proven time and time again .

(You can see pictures of a modern cold fusion experiment running at the physics department of Purdue university athttp://www.physics.purdue.edu/neutron/LENR.html)

A 30 percent success rate means it’s real
The reason why cold fusion was difficult to prove back in 1989 is because, during those times, the experimenters were only able to replicate these low-energy nuclear reactions in 30 percent of the experiments. So if a laboratory ran ten experiments, they would obtain low-energy nuclear reactions in three of those ten cases. According to the hot fusion defenders, this was proof enough that cold fusion was a fraud .

Of course, it is scientific insanity to suggest that just because something happens three out of ten times, it doesn’t exist at all. In my view, three out of ten times is pretty darn good for an emerging science that is experimental in nature and very poorly understood. With refinement and additional experiments, that number could doubtlessly have been increased to six or seven out of ten, and perhaps eventually ten out of ten .

Nevertheless, cold fusion was discredited. Today, more than 15 years later, it remains discredited and virtually unknown in the Western world. Meanwhile, Fleischmann and Pons are busy working for private corporations who will, without a doubt, one day release industrial or consumer versions of low-energy nuclear reactors that will provide freeenergyto households, businesses and even entire communities at very little cost .

Every time I write about cold fusion, by the way, I get one or two letters from some “esteemed” professor of physics from some university who thinks it’s his job to explain to me why cold fusion doesn’t exist and can’t work. (It’s a lot like receiving a letter through some sort of time machine, where all the senders of the letters are fifty years behind…) As always, these people remain utterly ignorant of what’s happening in this field. For example, in 1999, the Depart of Energy actually funded a low-energy nuclear reaction lab at the University of Illinois. Read it yourself athttp://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_10_1.html .

There are now over 400 scientific papers on cold fusion, most of which are now available athttp://www.lenr-canr.org/, the leading cold fusion community website. This site provides excellent reading on the history of cold fusion as well as the many challenges still being faced in this search for genuine scientific understanding .


Modern science seeks to protect its interests, not to reveal truth
The suppression of cold fusion is just one example of how our modern the scientific community operates more like a group of high priests than seekers of genuine scientific understanding. As a result, the science we live with today only represents a small fraction of the true scientific knowledge available to mankind. Much of the good science conducted over the last hundred years has been suppressed (cold fusion is just the beginning of this story). It has largely been concealed to protect either the financial interests of certain corporations or the ego interests of certain individuals or scientific groups .

In the world of so-called “evidence-based medicine,” the defenders of conventional medicine, which include the American Medical Association,medical schoolsand conventionally traineddoctors, also want to protect their territory. They want to remain in control over all medical decisions and health-related interactions withpatients. Yet, they have very few qualifications for actually doing so. For example, medicalschoolsdon’t even teach basicnutrition, and doctors graduate from medical schools and residence training with practically no understanding of nutrition whatsoever. They have no real qualifications to talk to patients aboutdiseaseprevention through healing foods, or to talk about how to live a healthy life through intelligentfoodchoice. These are the basics ofhealth, yet they are almost entirely ignored bymodern medicine .

Many of the most promising healing modalities are not just ignored by conventional medicine; they are in fact ridiculed. Homeopathy comes to mind.Homeopathy is discredited simply because the defenders of conventional medicine have no understanding of the mechanism by whichhomeopathicremedies work. It’s similar to saying that there is no such thing asinfectious diseasebecause we can’t see anygerms(which was once the official position of science-based medicine). Of course, once the microscope was invented, germs could be seen, and the acceptance of the scientific validity of infectious disease soon followed .

Some day, there will be instruments that can measure the vibrational nature, or what is called the “memory,” of water. When those instruments are available,homeopathywill seem to be common sense, but today it is considered fringe science or quackery by the defenders of conventional medicine because they don’t see how it could possibly work. They leave no room in theirbelief systemsfor the possibility that something could operate outside their current understanding. As long as there is no microscope for seeing homeopathic energy, the stodgy, egoistic defenders of evidence-based medicine will call it quackery. Of course, this is the samethinkingthat once called the germ theory quackery .


Ego is the enemy of science innovation
As you may have guessed, egos are a big part of the problem in all of this, because it is the ego that prevents people from challenging their current belief systems and adopting new ideas that require them to change. It’s often said that college professors hate to rewrite their courses, and I think that’s a good description of what’s occurring on a much larger scale here .

No one wants to rewrite their theories, re-evaluate their belief systems or admit they were wrong. Scientific understanding thus only progresses at the rate that leaders of conventional science retire or die. Thank goodness they do, because when that happens, they take their old, distorted belief systems with them, thereby making room for the new understanding and belief systems of the next generation of scientists. Science thus marches forward slowly, not on a schedule conducive to breakthroughs or true scientific research, but more along one that is dictated by the retirement of old guard defenders of outdated scientific theory .

The bottom line is: We as consumers should be wary any time someone says they have a “scientific approach” or an “evidence-based approach” to medicinal herbs, nutrition, pharmaceuticals or medicine.Anything that’s based on evidence is also subject to the distortions and belief systems of old-guard scientists and doctors who currently control the intellectual topography in which this evidence is framed. Just because something claims to be based on evidence doesn’t mean it’s true, nor that it stands up to genuine scientific scrutiny. And just because something is called quackery or rejected by the scientific community doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It could simply mean that a sufficient number of old school scientists haven’t died yet to make room for these new observations or theories .

Remember, current scientific “truth” is defined and guarded by a committee of the most powerful people and organizations in the scientific community (it’s called “peer review”). Anyone who has ever worked on a committee knows real progress under such systems is slow and painful. Real scientific progress usually comes from determined, outcast scientific rebels who are viciously attacked by old guard defenders of the current scientific community. You might recognize a few of their names: Einstein, Semmelweis, Copernicus, Tesla, and more than a few others .


Filed in: Medicine A - N

[Wonder Warthog]

"Not to mention repetitive. Kevmo adds to his record every time he regurgitates this stuff from a blog."

The "Abuse" button is right where it has always been.

[djf]

There are emerging theories that may totally change (well, majorly change) the way we look at physics.

IF - and I said IF - Brandenburgs theories on GEM are verified, we will be entering a new realm.

Anti-gravity generated by electromagnetic fields.
Faster than light travel.

The early parts of it seem to have been published in about 2000, he did alot more detail work in 2006, and has been getting peer-reviewed since then and nobody seems to be able to refute it.

As an interesting side note, he predicts the answer to the universe is not 42, it’s 42.85xxx

I am reading his book now, will have more to say when I finish it and do more web research.

[exDemMom]

With regard to medicine there’s thousands of people practicing and millions using “alternative medicine” from acupuncture to homeopathy to herbal treatments to shamanism to prayer to meditation and so on.

The reason these techniques are not as widely accepted as “mainstream” medicine is because they don’t work - at least for the vast majority of people. Were any to prove consistently effective, believe me, they would quickly gain widespread acceptance and use.

The placebo effect is a real phenomenon, and most likely accounts for the (very) limited success of those "alternative" medicines. Whenever I see someone urging people to reject evidence-based science and embrace "alternative" medicine developed on the basis of ... well, I don't know, but it makes me cringe and despair for the state of scientific education these days. I'm sure those same people disparaging the use of scientific based medicine are equally in favor of rejecting evidence if they ever get arrested and have to be put on trial...

[freedomfiter2]

The placebo effect is a real phenomenon, and most likely accounts for the (very) limited success of those “alternative” medicines.

You’re right. It also accounts for a not insignificant percent of the effects of approved medicines.

[Diogenesis]

Thank you for posting this and ignoring the ‘Luddites’.

[aruanan]

Thank you for posting this and ignoring the ‘Luddites’.

Funny, that, considering that the idea portrayed in the piece is the reigning theorem of the post-modern Luddites.

[aruanan]

Thank you for posting this and ignoring the ‘Luddites’.

The reason that people talk about the "body of knowledge" is that, like the body, there is system that serves to integrate and coordinate intellectual endeavors. The degree and efficiency with which it does it is open to question. But the idea that a body of anything should be "open to change" and "alternative this or that" would be like saying that various cancers are just alternative ways of an approach to biology that the body is trying to fight or that the body should be more open to trying different approaches to energy and resource use posed by various viruses and bacteria.

There are new and innovative ways of doing things and we see them all the time. Over the past 200 years we've seen greater and more frequent examples of this than at about any point in history. It may be that those who have a reigning theorem are reluctant to change it, but it's only natural that they would be, absent a really good reason to do so. And the reigning theorum usually does change as it comes up against a better and more efficient way of doing and explaining things. But it's unreasonable to ask that what is "established" take the attitude that anything is just as likely to be true as anything else.

[Lazamataz]

Ignorant gibberish. Stop wasting time and space.

Thank you for demonstrating the premise of this article, hinckley buzzard.

[Wonder Warthog]

"This is a caricature of medical science and science in general. There are always new ideas, models, and theories being proposed and adopted."

Well, it might exaggerate somewhat, but the problem described is very real. Medicine isn't my field, but I recall the "ulcers/H.Pylori" saga. In geology, "plate tectonics" is a good example. I'm sure there have been others in medicine and geology as well as other fields. And I've seen serious academic discussions about how science could do a better job of recognizing "outside the box" but nevertheless real discoveries. One proposal is for journals to actually reserve some small part of their space specifically to explore "fringe issues".

[Wonder Warthog]

"This is a caricature of medical science and science in general. There are always new ideas, models, and theories being proposed and adopted."

Well, it might exaggerate somewhat, but the problem described is very real. Medicine isn't my field, but I recall the "ulcers/H.Pylori" saga. In geology, "plate tectonics" is a good example. I'm sure there have been others in medicine and geology as well as other fields. And I've seen serious academic discussions about how science could do a better job of recognizing "outside the box" but nevertheless real discoveries. One proposal is for journals to actually reserve some small part of their space specifically to explore "fringe issues".

[aruanan]

One proposal is for journals to actually reserve some small part of their space specifically to explore "fringe issues".

Remember, though, that "fringe" stuff is, by its nature, virtually unlimited in scope. The better way would be for "peer review" to continue to get criticism until it becomes synonymous with CYA and then lose out to people actually looking at data.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Remember, though, that "fringe" stuff is, by its nature, virtually unlimited in scope."

I suspect that the part of the "fringe" that is actually doing serious work is a limited subset, and that any competent journal author should be able to recognize serious science vs. "garage crackpots". The thing to avoid is "topics that must be rejected at all costs".

"The better way would be for "peer review" to continue to get criticism until it becomes synonymous with CYA and then lose out to people actually looking at data.

I'm not sure I understand how this would work. Can you elaborate??

[Wonder Warthog]

Bulls-eye, Laz. LOL

[Lazamataz]

I almost wonder if hinckley buzzard wasn’t being funny and ironic on purpose. :)

[Kevmo]

Nothing new from you, just more seagulling.

Squawk!: How to Stop Making Noise and Start Getting Results [Hardcover]

http://www.amazon.com/Squawk-Making-Noise-Getting-Results/dp/0061562343

Travis Bradberry
Travis Bradberry (Author)
› Visit Amazon’s Travis Bradberry Page
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
3.9 out of 5 stars See all reviews (93 customer reviews)
93 Reviews
5 star: (32)
4 star: (34)
3 star: (14)
2 star: (10)
1 star: (3)

› See all 93 customer reviews...

---

List Price: $19.95
Price: $14.08 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save: $5.87 (29%)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Only 3 left in stock—order soon (more on the way).
Want it delivered Wednesday, September 7? Order it in the next 41 hours and 41 minutes, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. Details

40 new from $0.93 34 used from $0.28

---

Editorial Reviews
Review
“I’ve been talking about seagull management for years. If you want to understand how to turn it around, read Travis Bradberry’s Squawk!” (Ken Blanchard, coauthor of The One Minute Manager (R) and The One Minute Entrepreneur (TM) )

“There are several powerful leadership messages woven into this entertaining and memorable parable—teaching me when I was least prepared (and most ready) for it. I have a list of ten colleagues who will be getting a most-unexpected gift.” (Kenneth Forster, director, Global Customer Strategy, the Coca-Cola Company )

“Dr. Bradberry provides a wonderful solution with an easy-to-understand and utilize three-step model that allows you to engage your team and generate improved results. Read it, and you’ll see a positive change in your future!” (Robert Savage, COO, Taco Bell, Yum Brands )

“Squawk! is simple, yet powerful, and very entertaining. It provides a valuable illustration of how to get more from your team, and I was able to get through it in just one flight.” (Dennis Sadlowski, president and CEO, Siemens Energy and Automation )

“Squawk has a central theme I find near and dear—the tendency of managers to move so fast from problem to problem that they forget people are involved. People need time and attention, and this book is an important reminder that great management doesn’t happen on the fly.” (Stephen Lundin, coauthor of Fish! (R) and author of Cats )

“Companies are losing their top talent every day, and many of those departing do so on entrepreneurial wings. If you want to prevent this and learn to keep your flock together in friendlier skies, read this little fable and take its big lessons to heart!” (Michael E. Gerber, bestselling author of the E-Myth and Awakening the Entrepreneur Within )

“Squawk! is as profound as it is fun! A must-read for every manager.” (Ron McMillan, bestselling coauthor of Crucial Conversations, Crucial Confrontations, and Influencer )
Product Description
Unfortunately, we’ve all seen it happen. When faced with a problem, rather than working cooperatively to come up with a solution, your manager or colleagues come swooping in, squawking loudly, dump orders riddled with formulaic advice, and then take off, leaving you and everyone else to clean up the mess. Or—let’s be honest: there may have been a time (or three) when you have been guilty of doing that very thing yourself.

While this happens in every workplace worldwide more frequently than ever, it doesn’t have to. Through the story of Charlie, a seagull who doesn’t understand how his management actions are holding back his flock, Travis Bradberry, Ph.D., reveals the three virtues of great leadership that he has used to help thousands of people and organizations deal with seagull managers in the workplace and, just as important, to avoid being one themselves.

Charlie the seagull is a well-intentioned manager who, when faced with new challenges after previously leading his flock to success, fails to understand how his management style is holding back, rather than helping, his team. Through our bird’s-eye view of Charlie, overconfident Scott, quiet Maya, practical Yufan, and skinny, shy Alfred, we see them and the rest of the flock struggle to solve their problems while absorbing the three virtues of great leadership and teamwork along the way. This entertaining and illuminating fable will help make us all more productive, less prone to depositing messes on the heads of those around us, and more able to work effectively with those who continue to squawk at us every day.

[Kevmo]

Anti-gravity generated by electromagnetic fields.
***Sounds a lot like electrogravitics. It even has a keyword here on FR.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/electrogravitics/index?tab=articles

[aruanan]

I suspect that the part of the "fringe" that is actually doing serious work is a limited subset, and that any competent journal author should be able to recognize serious science vs. "garage crackpots". The thing to avoid is "topics that must be rejected at all costs".

This is what I mean. You'd have to have a review process to separate the garage crackpots from serious science. Since there is so much fringe stuff out there and since serious science that is way outside the current paradigms looks to established science at any point in history like garage crackpot stuff, you'd have to have extremely well-read editors to be able to adequately evaluate what should and shouldn't be in.

"The better way would be for "peer review" to continue to get criticism until it becomes synonymous with CYA and then lose out to people actually looking at data.

I'm not sure I understand how this would work. Can you elaborate??

This would have to just entail a shift in attitudes to the point that people would go back to sharing their results in the same way they did before what we currently call "peer review" existed. And it wasn't that long ago, historically speaking.

[Teacher317]

True science can be stand-offish to new ideas. The entire idea f the scientific model is that there are facts that you can build from.... and accepted ideas that seem to fit that model very well. It is incumbent upon the newcomer with the strange ideas to either show how these ideas fit into the accepted ideas, or how they change them. It is NOT up to the scientific community to “accept new ideas” BEFORE they are proven! Either create repeatable scientific evidence, or create a new working model... or shut up an keep working in the dark. In the end, if your ideas are valid, you’ll reap your rewards. Expecting the scientific community to accept unproven and as-yet-unprivable ideas is simply NOT science. Expecting anything else seems to indicate that your science is poor, your idea is not valid, and that you ought to be ignored.

[aquila48]

“You’re weird. I like you.”

LOL - my wife has pointed that out to me on more than one occasion.

[aquila48]

“The placebo effect is a real phenomenon, and most likely accounts for the (very) limited success of those “alternative” medicines.”

Isn’t the placebo effect “alternative” medicine? Science does not understand it well enough (yet) to make it a reliable treatment.

“Whenever I see someone urging people to reject evidence-based science and embrace “alternative” medicine developed on the basis of ... well, I don’t know, but it makes me cringe and despair for the state of scientific education these days.”

I don’t despair as long as they are the ones who suffer the consequences.

However, it’s also important to be aware of science’s very real limitations. Its realm is restricted to what’s repeatable and reproducible. It can’t deal with one-time events, or those that seem totally spurious. So “miracles”, “seers” that might predict a future event, in other words all the “paranormal” space is outside science’s scope, even though it is part of reality.