March For Science Stomps Out Free Thought


Column by Carrie Burdzinski.

“Science,” the method by which we understand the world and apply knowledge to improve human existence, is the latest casualty of the Progressive agenda. On April 22nd, 2017, several million people gathered at March for Science rallies across the United States to “stand up for science.” But surely science needs no publicity stunt in the industrialized world, where the benefits of scientific advancements—cars, electricity, cell phones, and the Internet—are widely accepted. So what exactly are these demonstrators promoting?

The first goal of the March for Science is to supplant the correspondence theory of truth with the consensus theory of truth—the belief that reality is determined by social opinion. As described in their Core Principles, “Political decision-making that impacts the lives of Americans and the world at large should make use of peer-reviewed evidence and scientific consensus.” However, consensus-based thinking is the antithesis of science; it is a groupthink approach to controlling public debate, as individuals with contradictory evidence are effectively censored. Capitalizing on this technique during her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton Tweeted, “The science is clear: the earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork.” To the contrary, vaccine science is not settled. Infectious diseases for which no vaccines existed (i.e., cholera and typhoid) declined in tandem with diseases for which vaccines did exist (i.e., whooping cough and polio). By taking claim to the banner of science, the vaccine agenda vilifies as “anti-scientific” those who present opposing evidence.

To the detriment of public health, consensus science is also used to sway dietary recommendations. Contrary to widely accepted medical opinion, dietary cholesterol has no impact on the development of atherosclerosis and heart disease. In fact, fructose, which is found in nearly all processed foods courtesy of the corn lobby, is a greater threat to cardiovascular health and obesity than is dietary fat. Consensus science is the same method USDA regulators used to justify classifying pizza sauce as a vegetable serving in the federal school lunch program. But the government-approved Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Asssociation) retains a legal monopoly on peddling nutritional advice, barring other individuals from obtaining licensing to provide alternative dietary consulting services.

The quality of a scientific theory is determined not by consensus or the number of people who believe it, but by its correspondence with reality. If the purpose of science is to discover truths about the world, then we needn’t be concerned with an individual scientist’s alleged minority group membership. But if the purpose of the new science is to advance an egalitarian political agenda, then group representation matters more than true scientific achievements. Indeed, issues that used to remain in the sludge of sociology are now encompassed by the scope of “science.” The Marcher’s statement continues:

We represent and stand in solidarity with historically underrepresented scientists and science advocates … We commit to educating ourselves and others about the issues of inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility in science … We pledge to amplify the work of underrepresented scientists … [We embody] a diverse range of races, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, religions, ages, socioeconomic and immigration statuses …”
A glance through their Twitter feed, replete with an ironic fusion of friendly rainbows and angry black-pride fists, affirms their conception of science as a tool for furthering social justice ideology: “colonization, racism, immigration, native rights, sexism, ableism, queer-, trans-, intersex-phobia, & econ justice are scientific issues.”

Yet data do not support their petulant insinuation that science is an exclusive realm for white men. As of 2013, 73% of graduates in health fields (surely “scientific” endeavors) were women; this level rises to 91% among those who hold PhDs in nursing. Asian-Americans hold 50% of tech jobs, despite comprising less than 6% of the American population.

Furthermore, true scientific inquiry is inherently unbiased, as each discovery is evaluated for its merits and reproducibility, and not by the alleged group identity of its author. The Marcher’s claims of underrepresentation are incongruous with their glorification of the peer review process, a system that should afford unbiased evaluation of research studies via anonymization of authors. But identity politics is impervious to facts. It exists to fuel the victimhood industry, which serves the interests of the victims (by granting them entitlements) and their advocates (by granting them a dependent class over whom to wield perpetual power).

The third step in the March for Science mission is to lobby for federal funding that ultimately secures a Progressive influence over public policy. According to the Marcher’s Principles, “We advocate federal funding in support of research, scientific hiring, and agency application of science to management.” Their conception of scientific inquiry is thus driven not by a quest for truth, but by Congressional funding schemes that subsidize predetermined, politically-influenced conclusions. For example, the annual federal HIV research budget is $2.7 billion (a fraction of the combined $34 billion HIV/AIDS budget that also provides healthcare, housing, disability stipends, and worldwide intervention). Yet HIV, which affects 1.2 million Americans, has a known cause and simple prevention. Meanwhile, the less-glamorous chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome (CFIDS), comparable in symptomatology and distribution, is designated to receive a mere $7.6 million—less than 1/300th of the annual HIV budget. Billions of taxpayer dollars are funneled into projects supporting other facets of a global agenda, including grants for disastrously inefficient wind turbines, subsidies for big agriculture’s GMO crops, and worldwide campaigns promoting birth control and abortion in the name of empowering women.

The apathetic citizenry has been duped into uncritically accepting modern scientific dogma. The degree of disdain the March for Science organizers hold of the public’s intellect is revealed in their insulting recommendations for protest signage:

What sign should I carry? … Maybe you want to proudly tell the world that vaccines have kept you healthy? Or thank the EPA for keeping your water safe? This could be the right time to declare your support for a well funded [sic] NIH!”

In the name of science and health, the March for Science promotes the MMR vaccine, which, according to whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, is known by the CDC to increase the risk of autism in African-American boys by 340%. The risks of the contemporary childhood vaccine schedule are so grave that the federal government enacted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program, a tax-subsidized fund to provide no-fault liability insurance for pharmaceutical companies whose products injure or kill—a perk extended to no other industry in the country. The oral polio vaccination campaign continues to result in rampant "acute flaccid paralysis" (i.e. vaccine-derived polio) in India. Although the Marchers claim to advocate for marginalized populations, it seems that they care not for the low-income/minority children who suffer vaccine damage. Based on their consensus science, vaccines have been irrefutably proven safe and effective.

In the name of science and safety, the March for Science admonishes us to “thank” the EPA, an agency that took nearly two years to investigate the lead poisoning crisis in Flint, Michigan, circa 2016. Thousands of children now suffer permanent neurological disability due to the failure of the EPA and DEQ to adequately investigate and enforce drinking water regulations. EPA employees have been granted effective immunity for their crimes, as a District Court judge dismissed the $722 million class-action lawsuit against the EPA. He ruled, “[A]llowing ... claims to proceed would circumvent the SWDA (Safe Water Drinking Act),” and that pursuing the suit would be “inconsistent with Congress’ carefully tailored scheme” to “entrust the regulation of the public drinking water systems to an expert regulatory agency rather than the courts.” The Marchers rally for economic justice, while simultaneously heralding an agency that routinely overlooks environmental abuses in low-income/minority areas.

In the name of science and research, the March for Science advocate for increased funding to the NIH, the same agency employing 34 scientists engaged in illegal off-the-books "relationships" with Big Pharma. In 2015, an NIH lab was finally shut down after repetitive failure to follow standard operating procedures resulted in fungal contamination of pharmaceuticals administered to human subjects. As recently as the 1990s, the NIH reportedly subjected foster children to unethical medical experiments involving a cocktail of seven AIDS drugs known to be toxic to adults. Once again, the Marchers maliciously disregard the carelessness and incompetence of the NIH, and clamor for more funding of this unethical institution.

The March for Science organization is nothing more than a modern-day Wizard of Oz. As the decrepit old charlatan’s power status was threatened, he exclaimed, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The great and powerful Oz has spoken!” His sophisticated smoke-and-mirrors show, similar to the manipulative doublespeak of social justice ideology, was designed to silence independent thinkers who would dare to question his authority. Note that his disgraceful scheme was finally brought down by facts, when little dog Toto merely pulled away the curtain to reveal the Wizard’s true identity. The Wizard of Oz turned out to be a displaced circus man named Oscar Zoroaster. Analogously, the March for Science is just a pseudonym for a particularly savvy branch of the Progressive agenda, and should be exposed as such.

Today’s modern science mythology is that the consensus of government researchers constitutes scientific truth; that “marginalized” people comprising 32 gender identities are helpless victims in need of activism; and that taxpayers should fund a global environmental and population control agenda. We must reverse this trend by reclaiming the definition of science as the pursuit of facts, independent of social causes. Just as Dorothy discovered that she did not need The Wizard to send her home, recognize that you do not need a deceptive March for Science to determine your academic and career interests. Your human capacity to observe, discover, reason, invent, and flourish, is already contained within. 

Your rating: None Average: 10 (2 votes)
Carrie Burdzinski's picture
Columns on STR: 4

Carrie Burdzinski is a biology professor at a public college in Michigan. She is also owner/operator of Aurum Naturals, a handmade beeswax candle business. As a side project, she writes and performs music for oboe. She is also an avid runner and organic food purist.


D. Saul Weiner's picture

In the U.S., progressives have long used their conception of science as a weapon against their enemies. They brand people who are less than 100% persuaded by the theory of evolution by natural selection as neanderthals who would take us back to the dark ages if they had the opportunity to do so.

They use support for the environmentalists' agenda as a litmus test for whether or not one is scientific-minded.
In their hands, science is a powerful device for creating and maintaining monopolies that determine which research gets funded, how medicine is to be practiced, and which viewpoints are to be taught. But perhaps most of all science is a tool to create a political monopoly for progressive politicians and their supporters.

D. Saul Weiner's picture

Anyone with a functioning brain ought to recognize that a slogan like "Vaccines work" has nothing to do with science.

Think about it for a minute. What does that even mean? Does it mean that a particular vaccine might protect certain people against a risky infectious agent, for a certain period of time, at an acceptable level of risk? That would be a scientific claim, right or wrong.

But that is not what "Vaccines work" means in practice. It means that we are to assume that whatever recommendations the CDC comes up with are to our benefit and should be mandated. It doesn't matter which (or how many) infectious agents they are recommending vaccines for, what quality the vaccines are, what evidence exists for their safety, etc. The whole slate of vaccines gets a stamp of approval to be used on everyone, simply by virtue of a government committee voting in favor of it.

This is how absurd decision-making becomes when it gets politicized.

Jim Davies's picture

Thanks, Carrie, for this blockbuster!  The archists have penetrated most other traditional fields of study such as history and economics in order to ruin young minds and their grasp of what's up; it's enormously sad to see them distorting even science as well.
It appalls me that a phrase like "correspondence theory of truth" even has to be used. A mere single lifetime ago, science had only to do with observing, theorizing and testing and then repeating the cycle; nobody questioned the necessity of relating to fact and reality in every part of that.
A couple of questions, if you have time:
(a) The "peer review" system appears to have merit. How do you see it relating to the "consensus theory of truth"?
(b) You mention that "HIV affects 1.2 million Americans, [and] has a known cause and simple prevention." Does it then actually exist, Dr Duesburg's findings notwithstanding?
Oh, and for good measure, why not put "Progressive" inside quote signs? - all that your article tells about the Marchers is large-scale regression.

GregL's picture

Excellent article!

“the belief that reality is determined by social opinion”

I love this way of phrasing it.

I am also interested in any comments you might have related to Jim Davies’s question about the value of peer review. There seems to be a lot of value to it, but without a good grasp of the subject matter it’s difficult for a layman to evaluate whether the peer review is just “group think”.

Kevin M. Patten's picture

Really great piece Carrie. Something to help motivate me to do more research on vaccines. 
Of course Shill Nye "The Science Guy" was there at the march, the guy who years ago said that chromosomes determine gender, and now claiming that we're all on a "spectrum" -- complete with perverted song lyrics to get his message across. He was also once skeptical of GMOs; now says they're perfectly safe. What a total fraud.
As you so wonderfully said, these are the people driving this loutish "trust the science" mantra. It's a bit ironic, as these progressive scientists are appealling to collegiates, those who likely read Foucault and other postmodernists, who say ITS ALL A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT...TOOL OF THE OPPRESSOR.