 All right, let us move on to the second topic I want to talk about. So I came across this article and I'm basically going to read a bunch of this article to you because I think it's so good and so powerful. And it relates to this issue with regard to the fact that Gama today does almost all scientific funding. So funding today in academia is almost science day in academia. It's almost all, all funded by a government. Now this is an article called the intellectual and moral decline in academic research. And I highly recommend it. It's been published by the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. It, the author is, let me just find the author, the author is a man named Edward Archer. And it is truly fantastic, truly fantastic. So he starts out by citing Eisenhower's presidential farewell address in 1961. And in this address, Eisenhower warned that the pursuit of government grants would have a corrupting influence on the scientific community. He feared that while American University, and I'm reading from the article, were quote, historically the foundation of a free ideas and scientific discovery, that the pursuit of taxpayer monies would become quote, a substitute for intellectual curiosity and lead to quote, domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment and the power of money. And that was an amazing statement by Eisenhower, president, I don't have much respect for generally, but this is truly a powerful, and I think true, statement by Eisenhower. And it's played out absolutely correctly. As the author notes, the relentless pursuit of taxpayer funding has eliminated curiosity, basic competence, and scientific integrity in many fields. Now think about most of the concern today of scientists is getting that government grant. It's figuring out what will trigger the government bureaucrat who approves the grant. It's making sure that whatever you're doing fits in with the agenda of the government agency that is giving the grant. Gone are the days of trying to do breakthrough science, trying to think outside of the box, trying to do something new, interesting, risky, because the government's not going to fund any of that. The government can only fund what is in a box, what is understandable to the bureaucrat, what is understandable to the specifics, the specific organization that is approving the grant. Who, by the way, did I not answer? I've answered everybody. There are two questions in the funnel waiting to be answered. I would get to them, but I answer, I try to answer everybody, so I don't understand what the, I'm in the middle of something. I'm not going to answer a super chat question while I'm in the middle of something. I'll get to it when I finish this topic. So there's constant, constant obsession about grant writing, about how to write a grant, how to appeal to the particular interests, the particular bureaucrat at the particular government agency. Critical thinking, methodological rigor, science are gone, are irrelevant. What we train graduate students today, people who are teacher's assistants, what we train them is in writing grants. They're not trained in doing science, they're trained in getting, in getting money. So this particular author is an expert in food, and he talks about public health research. So from 1970 until 2010, taxpayer funding for public health research increased 700%. You wonder why we have a deficit, 700%. And yet, the number of papers in academic journals, papers that were funded with taxpayer money that have been retracted from those academic journals, because they were shown to be fraudulent, inaccurate, unrepeatable, has gone up by 900%. So here you have a situation where the trolls are out in mass today. It's pretty, it's pretty amazing. So I'm sorry I have to stop because I have to eliminate the ability of this idiot to, to write on the chat because otherwise it, it just, it just becomes impossible for the people on there. 900% increase in the number of research articles that have to be retracted from 1970 to 2010 in public health research. Much of that due to what's called misconduct, fraud and retractions have increased so much from 2010 to 2015 that private foundations, private funders of science have actually created the Center for Scientific Integrity to check up on these scientists and Retraction Watch, a group that basically goes out and notices the retractions and alerts the public about scientific knowledge that is spread widely that then is retracted as non-knowledge. Now it has to be non-government institutions that do this because the universities are in the pockets of both the people asking for funding and of the government. Universities don't hold their faculty accountable. They don't hold the faculty accountable for fraud. They don't hold the faculty accountable for misconduct. They don't hold the faculty accountable for sloppy research, for bad research, but even for actual fraud, known actual fraud, they don't hold them accountable. And the scientists know this. Over 14% of researchers report that their colleagues commit fraud, fraud, which means they lie. And 72% report some other questionable practices. 72% of scientists believe their colleagues engage in questionable practices in their science. And we're talking about the best universities in the world. We're talking about Duke University, the eighth largest recipient of NIH funding at 475 million NIH as the National Institute for Health, government money, taxpayer money. And yet a whistleblower at Duke alleged that $200 million in grants were obtained using falsified data. They made up the data to get the grant. They have 50 papers of being retracted from work funded by the NIH. I mean, it truly is stunning the numbers this guy is revealing. And this should really, really piss you off, really, really concern you. Harvard, which is the wealthiest university in the world, received almost $600 million in public funds from the National Institute of Health and other agencies in just 2018. Some faculty, well, these funds, they could pay tuition, room, board, and books for every undergraduate at Harvard. And yet the faculty has an ever-increasing number of attractions due to misconduct or incompetence. In one case, Harvard's teaching hospital was forced to pay $10 million because its faculty had fraudulently obtained NIH funding. Of course, the penalty is only a fraction of the grants they actually get. Cornell has constantly had to investigate researchers who receive millions of dollars from the Department of Agriculture, for example. The author claims that academic research is often conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. So it's not truth-seeking. It's grant-seeking, tenure-seeking, promotion-seeking. And if you combine that with sharing competence, what we get is studies that tell us that eggs are good for us and then eggs are bad for us, that coffee causes cancer and then coffee extends life. If you follow diet and if you follow food research, you know, you know that the research is pathetic in its inconsistency. That study after study cannot be replicated. That study after study gives us no valuable information about how to actually live our lives. Now, I think this applies to global, to climate change, sorry, not global. I mean the fact is that all climate change studies are funded by, almost all of them are funded by the government. To get money if you're a climatologist or if you're in the field, the only way to get money from the government, the only way to do research is to do it on climate change. And if you produce results that say it's not catastrophic, it's not a problem, it's nothing to worry about. You're not going to get your funds renewed. So it's a self-perpetuating type idea. Good news does not warrant more money. Bad news does. So there's a massive incentive to produce bad news. There's a massive incentive to produce news that the government wants to hear. There's a massive incentive to produce what the bureaucrats want you to produce. And what of course that results in is in a politicization, complete influence of politics over science. And people say, well, the scientists believe that the globe is warming, but I say I don't trust scientists anymore. Because science has been politicized, not only on the issue of climate change, on the issue of food, on the issue of climate change, and on many, many other issues, anything that relates to public policy, I don't trust the scientists because they've been corrupted by politics. Now what is the solution to this? Now the author of this article, unfortunately, gives three very lame solutions. I won't bore you with them. There's only one solution to it. And it's to advocate for real capitalism. Somebody on the Super Chat said, I can't believe he said Ted Cruz doesn't believe in capitalism. Yeah, he doesn't, because capitalism is the complete separation of state from economics. But in this case, capitalism means the complete separation of state from science. The only way to stop this corruption is to eliminate the funding of science by government. Let's privatize science. Let's completely privatize the funding of science. Let's take the billions and billions and billions of dollars that go to the NIH, that go to all these research institutions, that go to all these universities, and let's return them to taxpayers. Let's eliminate them from the federal budget, and from state budgets, if the states do this to the extent that they do this. What we need is a constitutional amendment that separates science from state, that prohibits the government from getting involved in science, from prohibiting the government from funding any scientific pursuits. Until we have that, we are doomed to continue on the spiral of ever more corruption in the field of science. And it truly is sad, because science is the fountainhead of the enlightenment. It was the scientific revolution that led to the enlightenment, and ultimately the political revolution, and to capitalism. It is science that is in our culture representative of reason, representative fact, representative of rationality and reality. If science is corrupt, if science, we can't trust scientists, then we truly cannot trust anybody. So I think this idea that government corrupt science is so, I mean the beauty of this article is it documents so well and so thoroughly. And we know, and there have been other studies that have shown, that the number of scientific papers that experiments are described that could be recreated, shrinking dramatically. And that should really scare you. The decline of science might be the most scary thing happening in the world today. What we need today, what are called the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broad. Using the super chat and I noticed yesterday, when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com, slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...