Deny This!

Hi ATS,

I found the following collection of articles on the NewScientist website whilst on my dinner break a couple of weeks ago, and thought I would share them. It would be nice to hear your opininons, to be honest I am quite science orientated but this type of material just makes me annoyed. I love work by Jung & Freud, but research these days just seems to distort reality.

Here are a few quotes to evoke a little emotion out of you guys!

HEARD the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money. Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.

Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics (see "How to be a denialist"). All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain, atheism.

This common ground tells us a great deal about the underlying causes of denialism. The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases - diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work.

Special Report: Living In Denial

Tha above link is the overview of all the articles. The following link is for the story the quotes were taken from:

Why Sensible People Reject The Truth

How Orwellian of them to coin a new term with "denialist". I'd bet it will become all the rage.

I do my best to, ahem, deny ignorance, so go ahead and call me a denialist.

Those articles are a load of rubbish. Propaganda at it's finest.

This common ground tells us a great deal about the underlying causes of denialism. The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust.

....and when there's no trust to begin, that leaves us with....??

I never knew that scientific analysis was solidified by mere trust.

I know what you guys are saying, though I usually rate NewScientist quite highly and this article came as a shock to me. Heres some more quotes:

The process is amplified by the "echo chamber" of the internet, which has made it easier than ever to encounter and spread falsehoods. It also makes it easier to start them. Propagators are often aware of what they are doing, according to Sunstein. Some act out of self-interest, such the desire for money or fame. Others are defending an ideology or faith. Some are simply malicious.

Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.

And this one I find interesting, a rating system on denial:

True disbelievers

Climate denial
* In a nutshell: Global warming either (1) isn't real (2) isn't caused by humans or (3) doesn't matter
* Origin: Corporate astroturfing in the early 1990s
* Call themselves: Climate sceptics
* Influence: *****

Evolution denial
* In a nutshell: The theory of evolution is an atheist conspiracy to undermine religion
* Origins: 19th century, though continually renewed
* Call themselves: Creationists or intelligent design advocates
* Influence: ****

Holocaust denial
* In a nutshell: The systematic mass killing of European Jews by Nazi Germany is a fabrication, or at least a wild exaggeration
* Origins: Late 1940s
* Call themselves: Holocaust revisionists
* Influence: *

AIDS denial
* In a nutshell: HIV either (1) does not exist or (2) does not cause AIDS
* Origins: 1987, when molecular biologist Peter Duesberg of the University of California questioned the link between HIV and AIDS in an academic paper
* Call themselves: AIDS truthers
* Influence: **

9/11 denial
* In a nutshell: The US government either orchestrated or was complicit in the 9/11 attacks
* Origins: Doubts about the official version of events were circulating within days of the attacks
* Call themselves: 9/11 truth movement
* Influence: *

Vaccine denial
* In a nutshell: Umbrella term for a disparate movement claiming that certain vaccines either (1) do not work or (2) are harmful
* Origins: Has been around for as long as vaccines
* Influence: ***

Tobacco denial
* In a nutshell: There is considerable uncertainty about the science linking tobacco smoke to lung cancer
* Origin: 1970s, tobacco industry
* Influence: *

I look at it this way.
Since the federal government, the legislative and the executive branches, have become the "front desk" for several BIG international corporations, then they are merely propagandists.
We don't watch a television commercial and take it for science do we? Unfortunately, this is what is happening to our once trusted institutions. The affects of obscene amounts of influential money to bring about a certain "scientific" result equates to corruption.
A loss of trust.
Count me among the "denialists".

This is a double edged sword. What about believers? Hmmmm... Two sides of the same coin.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Protostellar]

reply to post by Protostellar


Yeah we have a few who blindly follow the OS

but then again we also have the ones who will blindly follow every CT and then call themselves open-minded while under the same breath refusing to look at a single other possibility even when shown to be wrong?

yeah...we have a few

-Kyo

[edit on 1-6-2010 by KyoZero]

No money to be made from swine flu?

10s of millions of vaccines sold with countries bidding against each other?

No money to be made?

Whether the whole swine flu thing was a money making exercise is up for debate.
That there was serious amounts of cash to be made is most definitely not.

That conspiracies have happened in the past, repeatedly and often, is a proven fact - ask Julius Ceasar.
Why then be so closed to the possibility that some things aren't as they seem?

Denial

reply to post by Protostellar


Believers however do not vocally cry BS when TPTB feed it to them.

"Mmmm, that's tasty, can I have some more?"

Propagators are often aware of what they are doing, according to Sunstein. Some act out of self-interest, such the desire for money or fame. Others are defending an ideology or faith. Some are simply malicious.

Well he would know wouldn't he.

Propaganda, plain and simple, they are trying to create a movement against anyone who questions their activities. Look at what was mentioned as examples...most of the Sheeple out there will see that list and 'know' now that anything they hear that conflicts with the OS is a lie propagated by 'european' agitators. If I didn't know better I would think this was the 1950's and Macarthyism was in full swing.

It's a well thoughtout article, the taxpayers got their money's worth.