National Geographic: The War on Science ... All Fluff!!!

The cover of this March 2015 issue of Nat Geo States :

1 Climate Change (Does not exist)
2 Evolution (Never Happened)
3 The Moon Landing (Was Fake)
4 Vaccinations (can lead to autism)
5 GMO (is evil)

article here :

ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

The article begins with a small bow to Dr Stangelove and a fake courtesy to free thinkers, then the tiny claws come out.The author (Joel Achenbach) brings up flouride in the water and its obvious he doesnt do the research . Scientists agree that its beneficial free dental care and thats as far as he goes. Nevermind Chinese and Russian governments make notable studies that enough flouride levels make a population very docile. Hes completely satisfied that scientists agree minor levels of fluoride is beneficial.. take it a mg above that level and you dumb down the results significantly.. he doesnt or wont get that. And he inserts semi snide remarks to those that dare challenge big money driven scientific results.
Ironically, in the same exact issue, an article named "Quake Country", the author asks aloud why are there so many quakes in Oklahoma, then draws a parallel to fracking activity. But then cynically says the change will come from the Oklahoma energy secretary , who , of course , gets his data from energy / oil companies.
But back to this article by Mr. Achenbach. He stats over and over again scientific method is the one true voice of nature and anyone outside of that ideology is ,,, well it seems he's saying you're not on
his level. Like yah just follow the mainstream line into the atom smasher until perhaps they create a tiny black hole or who knows? Nowhere anywhere in this article is one of the graphs that make Nat Geo famous. We want to see the one that shows the skyrocketing rates of autisim, and if not vaccinations, then what? At least offer some explanation. Dont just fluff me with your " I cant trust anything except what Pharm scientists tell me" Lets see a real graph based upon perhaps one like this :

scienceblogs.com...

Scientific blog is reputable. And on top of that, its not a pure vaccine.. its preserved by Thimerosal (mercury) just to extend the shelf life of their precious product. Thats what vaccines are all about... $$$$ ... its disgusting that big pharm wants your to inject Thimerosal into your body, just to protect their profits. But , Mr Achenbach never even considers such possibilities, and Dan Kaplan tried to tell you, you're riding with blinders bro. I cant believe Nat Geo let you have the cover as a debunker and you offer NOTHING, complete fluff.. you best ( and National Geographic) learn ...WE DONT TRUST you , when this is what you offer us as an alternative to what we observe : lies and more lies.

I find that I have mixed feelings about the articles mentioned. I definitely think evolution happened, for example. I also know climate change exists. However, I'm not as convinced about the vaccinations and GMO's being safe.

I saw this edition of National Geographic, though, and was wondering when someone would bring it up on ATS.

Mainstream science believes:
1 Climate Change is happening
2 Evolution is happening
3 The Moon Landing happened more than once
4 Vaccinations cause more good than risk
5 GMO crops are safe

I really would not expect National Geographic to support the alternate theories.

I think we can all agree evolution is a no brainer ... but .. evolution was a creation

I see the articles points on internet forums every day.
-And agree with all of them. (Yes even the gmo ones)
Not saying everyone has too,
If internet armchair "know it alls" want to think that they're smarter than scientists then so be it.

a reply to: Speckle

Does that linked graph really show that 100 out of 100 children will be autistic by approx 2035? Why does it go up to 120? You cannot have 120 people with autism out pf 100. Oh wait, fetuses? Multiple personalities? Unless it is in thousands, but it does not say. And General Population? I am going to be Autistic in the near future, although I require no vaccines and refuse to take any and haven't had a single shot for over 10 years?

That autism graph is terrible...

& I'm confused as to whether you were sharing it out of sarcasm or seriousness.


It makes a huge jump in future years with no correlation to previous years that hold steady...


Almost as if someone was taking the piss.

a reply to: Speckle

Without reading the article, would it be safe to assume that there were quite a few advertisements from pharmaceutical companies in the magazine?

The Earth's climate does change.
Plants and animals do evolve.
We did land on the moon.

Therefore vaccines and genetically modified foods are safe? That's some sound, scientific reasoning right there.

This is a space Nat Geo should not be in. Very bad and a sign that things are not well there.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
That autism graph is terrible...

& I'm confused as to whether you were sharing it out of sarcasm or seriousness.


It makes a huge jump in future years with no correlation to previous years that hold steady...


Almost as if someone was taking the piss.

My thoughts exactly Charles, that is definitely take the piss.

That graph was at least as bogus as the famous AGW hockey stick was.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Speckle

Without reading the article, would it be safe to assume that there were quite a few advertisements from pharmaceutical companies in the magazine?

The Earth's climate does change.
Plants and animals do evolve.
We did land on the moon.

Therefore vaccines and genetically modified foods are safe? That's some sound, scientific reasoning right there.

My exact thoughts!!

Great job picking out the psychological programming they so cleverly orchestrate!

The "scientific community" has got to be one of greatest tools the elite built up to disseminate their agenda, all you have to do is throw the words "independent" and "experts" and bam, the masses will follow suit!

Even worse, those who have gone to college, without questioning who provides the material they pay to study (example being MDs learning pharma science exclusively), gain this sense of pious entitlement of "knowledge" they use to belittle anyone who raises concerns about such things as allopathic medicine or the GMO's that make sure that medicine stays profitable!

Looks like National Geographic has begun exposing BS, you guessed it - one turd at a time. Help! Mother!

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Speckle

Without reading the article, would it be safe to assume that there were quite a few advertisements from pharmaceutical companies in the magazine?

The Earth's climate does change.
Plants and animals do evolve.
We did land on the moon.

Therefore vaccines and genetically modified foods are safe? That's some sound, scientific reasoning right there.

My exact thoughts!!

Great job picking out the psychological programming they so cleverly orchestrate!

The "scientific community" has got to be one of greatest tools the elite built up to disseminate their agenda, all you have to do is throw the words "independent" and "experts" and bam, the masses will follow suit!

Even worse, those who have gone to college, without questioning who provides the material they pay to study (example being MDs learning pharma science exclusively), gain this sense of pious entitlement of "knowledge" they use to belittle anyone who raises concerns about such things as allopathic medicine or the GMO's that make sure that medicine stays profitable!

Your right science is all a trick by the devil to discredit Jesus!!! Lol

When science loses the ability to question itself this is what happens. It becomes a closed loop made so by financial interests that stand to lose if their claims prove invalid. Throwing in the moon landings was clever, it is in no way related to any of the other subjects. That is an overt display of bias, something not needed if the other statements were unquestionably true....

I may not believe in half the stuff that science says because of intent and the steering of the research, but the results of research are correct most times in respect to the parameters. The trouble is interpreting the evidence correctly and discounting evidence that is not considered pertinent. Most time the desire to prove something is what guides the research and using procedures based on our misguided desires lead to problems in the interpretation of the results. The desire for funding of research influences the testing done. Only evidence that is allowed is considered relevant most times.

Check this out. It shows evidence that horizontal transfer is likely happening between microorganisms and all animals. It always has. I quickly believed it was possible for these little creatures to steer our evolution once I started intensely studying our interaction with them almost seven years ago. www.sciencedaily.com...

Now I believe in evolution, but not the crappy version that they are teaching us, that version is not adequate.

I also do not believe in fluoridated water or salt. I do not believe all the vaccines are needed, I think that it is all about profit. I am not happy with the direction this society is going in. They trust the screwed up interpretations of science that they hear without questioning them. We have been led to believe science is pure, it is not, intent drives the research.

I believe we are killing the ecosystem but I will not be limited by what they are saying up high. It is not just the air polution, we are changing the chemistry of the ecosystem way too fast.

its hard , yes its hard to filter the real unadulterated pure science from the background financial science. In fact I actually wonder if there is a pure science state

a reply to: Entreri06

Not a trick by the devil however owned by Corporate influence would be more to the point!

Lets take an example, Climate change, we have a legion of Climate change scientists who are correct about the fact that we are having a severe impact upon our environment. This is easily proven.

Now where that corporate influence comes in is when the only solutions being offered are things along the lines of carbon tax, the discussion is about to many people etc... when there is are a couple of very simple solutions we should be seeing this legion of "scientists" out there demanding.

#1 The full use of hemp!
#2 The end of deforestation!
#3 The end of pesticides/herbicides!
#4 Alt tech that is already available as seen in other countries!
#5 Permaculture

This a very simply list that should be the forefront of this scientific issue, however the Corporate "scientific community" remains silent, no devil simply the greed and apathy of man!

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Entreri06

Not a trick by the devil however owned by Corporate influence would be more to the point!

Lets take an example, Climate change, we have a legion of Climate change scientists who are correct about the fact that we are having a severe impact upon our environment. This is easily proven.

Now where that corporate influence comes in is when the only solutions being offered are things along the lines of carbon tax, the discussion is about to many people etc... when there is are a couple of very simple solutions we should be seeing this legion of "scientists" out there demanding.

#1 The full use of hemp!
#2 The end of deforestation!
#3 The end of pesticides/herbicides!
#4 Alt tech that is already available as seen in other countries!
#5 Permaculture

This a very simply list that should be the forefront of this scientific issue, however the Corporate "scientific community" remains silent, no devil simply the greed and apathy of man!

Dude science is saying those things... Politicians are who are putting forth a carbon tax. Science says we should be going solar. Your confusing the Obama administration with the scientific community......

Science knows we need to stop. So they are for anything that might help.


It's also politicians pretending climate change isn't real, not scientists. It's sad we give the politicians more credibility.

a reply to: Entreri06

Do you really believe that scientists are not as corrupted as politicians when it comes to towing the line in order to continue getting funding? Lobbyists are there for both, whether it is during campaigns or in medical/the variety of scientific academia.

A good point on this would be the kind of studies allowed when it came to the medicinal qualities of Cannabis.

There was no incentive to prove the many and I do mean many benefits of Cannabis when it comes to a myriad of dis-eases, so let me restate that question, where was the scientific community during these years of clear oppression of real science??

Lets take another example, the FDA and the what is known as the Standard American Diet (SAD) if the FDA was actually doing its job, there would be nothing besides organic produce, high fructose corn syrup would have been banned in the first place same with Aspartame.

Another example, the EPA, would never have allowed herbicides/pesticides be the norm from the get go, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt using ignorance as a reason. Well just this year they decided that Enlist Duo would be a great idea!

How do these things continue to happen? In my book the answer is simple, corrupt corporate science, that gets in the way of the true application of the scientific method. Those scientists who speak out lose their financing and are discredited, to think only politicians fall to this method of control is pure naivety.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Entreri06

Do you really believe that scientists are not as corrupted as politicians when it comes to towing the line in order to continue getting funding? Lobbyists are there for both, whether it is during campaigns or in medical/the variety of scientific academia.

A good point on this would be the kind of studies allowed when it came to the medicinal qualities of Cannabis.

There was no incentive to prove the many and I do mean many benefits of Cannabis when it comes to a myriad of dis-eases, so let me restate that question, where was the scientific community during these years of clear oppression of real science??

Lets take another example, the FDA and the what is known as the Standard American Diet (SAD) if the FDA was actually doing its job, there would be nothing besides organic produce, high fructose corn syrup would have been banned in the first place same with Aspartame.

Another example, the EPA, would never have allowed herbicides/pesticides be the norm from the get go, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt using ignorance as a reason. Well just this year they decided that Enlist Duo would be a great idea!

How do these things continue to happen? In my book the answer is simple, corrupt corporate science, that gets in the way of the true application of the scientific method. Those scientists who speak out lose their financing and are discredited, to think only politicians fall to this method of control is pure naivety.

Everything you have named is done by politicians not the science community. Scientists have been the ones who did pot experiments. Scientists have been saying there are dangers to pestacides. Your still confusing politicians and science.