Written by Alberto Miatello



If we asked all the scientists in the world about the most important good in their activity, no doubt most of them would indicate scientific freedom on top of the list.

Scientific freedom is the quintessence of scientific activity, in the same way as water is the most important element for fishes. It is also a “corollary” of science itself, because no new scientific discovery can be made, without the possibility to freely study and investigate (freedom of thought)  and then discuss, compare, disclose  and publish scientific results (freedom of the press). freedom of speechIn 1958 the Hungarian (then naturalized British and member of the Royal Society) scientist Michael Polanyi, became famous with his book: “Personal Knowledge”, in which he refuted the common view that scientific method is something “objective” and “neutral”, on the contrary he pointed out that scientists are normally following personal passions before deciding which problems and scientific facts deserve to be investigated.

Therefore – Polanyi argued – just a liberal system which can guarantee total freedom “to pursue science for its own sake” (as opposed to a conception in which science should be instrumental to pursue “social needs”, i.e. contaminated by political evaluations) can be suggested as a way to allow  total and real scientific freedom.

However, scientific freedom today, in a world dominated by powerful government, business, media and lobby groups, is far from having been reached.

Although today it is not so common as in the past that a scientist is subject to physical violence (as Ignac Semmelweis was in XIX century), there are many ways by which today the scientific establishment can silence and marginalize inconvenient scientists. 

One of the commonest ways – as we shall see – is the method of labeling (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory ) as derived by the sociological  theories of Becker, Lemert, Mead, Goffman, etc., i.e. put a negative label, as a sort of “stigma” of deviance on some groups or categories  by dominant groups, so that to prevent other persons from following them, or marginalize


Whereas in the past 100 years typical and common negative labels in  social life were: “adultery”, “Jew”, “criminal”, “homosexual”, “mental ill”, “negro”, etc., now in the scientific establishment two negative labels seem to dominate:

1. “Conspiracists”

( a negative label meaning  that someone or some groups are “foolishly”  believing that 2 or more persons are behind some resounding facts such as murders, great events of history, or  similar)

2.” Deniers “

(another negative and offensive label meaning that some scientific groups would “deny” an alleged “evident” scientific opinion, in the same way as filo-nazi historians denied the historical truth of the holocaust).

What follows is a short analysis of some of the most famous persecutions and/or falsifications against the scientific freedom in the last 200 years.

1. Ignaz Semmelweis

Ignaz Semmelweis (1818 – 1865) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis  is considered the father and founder of the modern asepsy , i.e. all the technics for cleaning and disinfection in surgery, and medical procedures, and he is also gratefully remembered all over the world as the “savior of mothers”.

He discovered that the high incidence of puerperal fevers in obstetrical departments of hospitals was linked to the bad habit of many doctors to visit poor mothers after childbirths, after performing dissections of corpses in the morgue, without cleaning their hands and thereby transmitting infections.

Semmelweis suggested some very simple procedures of hand cleaning with solutions of chlorinate, to kill bacteria, and his suggestions and publications led to a drastic drop of mortality in obstetrical departments.

However some idiotic (although ”important”) members of the scientific community in Wien resented and felt “offended” by  Semmelweis’ suggestions, and started to boycott him. Then Semmelweis was fired and started to suffer various nervous diseases, after such a bad treatment. At the end he was hospitalized in an asylum, and died just 14 days after commitment, when he was just 47 year old, after having been violently beaten by the guards.

20 years later the great Louis Pasteur defended and gave full scientific support to the Semmelweis theory of asepsy, unfortunately Semmelweis could not get any reward for his discovery.

Semmelweis’ case is probably considered the most shameful and blatant example of scientific persecution by the stupidity and arrogance of the scientific establishment, in the last 2 centuries.

And now we will examine more modern cases, in which the scientific establishment tried/is trying to put hindrances to the scientific freedom, through the constant use of labels such as “deniers”, or “conspiracists”

2. CO2, GHE, and CFC (clorofluorocarbons)

As we all know, “deniers” is the commonest negative label which is being used against us, by the upholders of scientific “consensus” in climate science. Deniers simply means – in their distorted vision of science – that in climate science everything is “settled” (a term coined by Nicholas Stern in his report of 2006), and no further discussion should be admitted other than global temperatures are rising, and that should occur just for CO2 human emissions. And that’s the reason why important scientific magazines such as “Nature”, and “Science” in the last years simply refuse to publish articles not complying with the “pseudoscience” of global warming, as the Nobel prize-winner Ivar Giaever (who resigned from the American Physical Society for this reason) named it.

However, it would be too long to discuss here why GW is a pseudoscience, Readers can find dozen articles here at Principia Scientific International (PSI).

What it is interesting to notice, is that PSI has several times made a clear distinction between some unscientific and untenable positions of IPCC, such as those regarding GW, and other correct and scientifically serious statements, as those regarding the danger of CFC (chlorofluorocarbons) for our atmosphere and environment.

In other words: IPCC and GW supporters are wrong when trying to persuade people that CO2 can heat the atmosphere, and Greenhouse Effect Theory is correct, because both theories have no serious scientific ground, but they are correct in denouncing the danger for the atmosphere and our Ozone layer in stratosphere, by the use of CFC, because CFC really destroy the Ozone layer (filtering UV radiations) causing a bigger heating.

Our Readers can find several articles here in PSI showing the danger of CFC for our Ozone layer (last article: “Geoengineering is destroying the Ozone layer, by Dane Wigington, August 2, 2013).

Thus, it is blatantly false the accusation of scientific “denialism” toward us, as we have no problem in recognizing IPCC’s correctness  where a phenomenon is scientifically proved.

CFC’s danger for Ozone layer is proved, CO2 and GHE “warmism” have no scientific basis, and we cannot but clearly say it.

3. JFK Assassination

The murder of President Kennedy is another example of scientific  misuse of the label “conspiracists”.

In recent years those who believe that Kennedy was killed by an organized plot (nearly 80% of Americans) are constantly named “conspiracists”, meaning that the only correct historical and scientific reconstruction of JFK murder should be that of the Warren Commission, namely that of the “lonely gunman” (i.e. Lee H. Oswald).

Yet, this approach is false and misleading, and omits to consider that:

a) Official reports of the Government (such as the “House Select Committee on Assassination” in 1978-1979) have already been released  saying that “President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”, thus it is totally wrong, both historically and scientifically, to go on  repeating that those who don’t believe the Warren Commission’s conclusions of 1964 (clearly influenced by the political  worries of that time to avoid international frictions with the Soviet Union, or finding involvements in the murder of other powerful organizations: mafia, CIA, oilmen, etc.)  now became  “conspiracists”.

b) Those who support the old, official conclusions of the Warren Commission about the “lonely gunman”, tried many times to arrange ballistic and “scientific” reconstructions to uphold those conclusions, but  are always unable to explain some plain FACTS, such as:

1) At least 40 persons saw puff of smoke, or heard shots coming from the stockade fence of the grassy knoll

2) The version of Governor John Connally, who always said that he turned back and saw Kennedy keeping his hands on his throat, BEFORE another shot hit him on his chest rib. Connally repeated this version many times, and he never changed it.


This is clearly a total debunk of the “magic bullet” theory, purporting that the same bullet could hit both Kennedy and Connally.

Thus, at least 4 shots were surely fired in just 5.6” and even the Warren Commission admitted that no more than 3 shots could have been fired by that Mannlicher-Carcano in a so short span of time.

However, the main point is that a total freedom of scientific and historical research should be allowed for this crucial historical event, and negative labels such as “conspiracists” should be banned once forever.

4. Moon landings

The word “conspiracists” is often being used also to describe the ultra-skeptical “theory”, maybe fostered by fantasy  movies like “Capricorn One” (1978), or by the fact that after 1972 no new human landing on the Moon was performed,  according to which the 6 Apollo missions that brought man on the Moon were a colossal “hoax”, and Moon landings were just an accurately  organized staged fake,  with the help – some argued – of famous film  directors as Stanley Kubrick, and it seems (from several polls), that a percentage between 6-20% of Americans is skeptical regarding the actual landing of mankind on the Moon.

It is important to analyze this misuse of the word “conspiracists” in this situation, because this is a clear example of how unreliable and generalized is the use of the same word, to describe totally different situations.

It is clear that Moon landings were true, historical and scientific facts, and better than “conspiracists”, it would be necessary to use the word “ignorants”, to name those who believe that Moon landings never happened.

There are at least 4 compelling reasons, providing full evidence that Moon landings really happened: age of samples of Moon rocks, laser retroreflectors, non-Nasa observers of lunar missions (USSR, Australia, Spain)  recent photographs (2012) of lunar Apollo artifacts, including shadows of FLAGS planted by Apollo’s astronauts.


But the most evident proof of the human landings on the Moon is provided by simple common good sense reasoning: it would have been humanely impossible to organize such a huge “hoax”, persuading many different astronauts, hundreds technicians, etc., both to organize and to keep the secret for decades on such a foolish hoax.

This is another clear example of the ideological misuse of the word “conspiracists”.

5. September 11, 2001

And finally, it seems necessary to analyze another incorrect and ideological misuse of the word “conspiracists”, with reference to those who are unsatisfied  about the official  version by the government of  the 9/11 terrorist attacks to the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and by another flight that crashed in Pennsylvania, and are therefore requesting  more investigations, to find the truth.

First of all, it makes no sense to name “conspiracists” those who are asking for more investigations, because the 9/11 attacks were by definition a conspiracy, in which many hijackers acted simultaneously, and they were supported by terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

Moreover, it is not true that the refusal to consider “satisfying” the official version of 9/11 terrorist attacks, would necessarily mean to agree with  some radicals theories such as those from Michael Moore (in the movie: “Fahreneith 9/11) , hinting close relationships of the US past governments,  Bush family and Bin Laden family, and even suggesting therefore an indirect/direct  involvement of government agencies/members in the 9/11 attacks.

Probably the most persuading appeal to go on with scientific investigations on 9/11 Twin Towers collapse (especially) was the one coming from 2,000 American Architects and Engineers (http://www.ae911truth.org/) who deeply and technically analyzed the Twin Towers collapse, and suspected a “controlled demolition”, i.e. the use of thermite explosive in key points of steel structures, as the  crashes of the hijacked airplanes, and the subsequent  fires on top of the buildings were not sufficient to produce a total and quick (when it took place) collapse of the Twin Towers.

The only comment can be: let scientific investigations freely go on here too, with no fear to discover new things, and without labels and censorships that could make hindrance to the scientific truth and freedom.

Alberto Miatello

March 19, 2014


Tags: , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    Paul Clark


    [quote name=”AJ Virgo”].[/quote]Then why was there no pile driver (top few floors) left at the end? Why was it all pulverised, with no piece bigger than a hand? Why did the pile driver fall through the path of greatest resistance and not merely fall off the edge?

    Why did people emerge with their skin stripped from their body describing explosions? Why were there many explosions in the basement minutes before each of the two buildings collapsed — the same way? Why was there a pyroclastic flow indicating extreme heat? What about building 7? Why did the BBC report building 7’s collapse minutes before it happened — how could they know? Why was there never such an office fire-driven collapse before or after 9/11?

    Why was there exploded and unexploded thermite in the dust? Why were there once-molten micro spheres of iron — office fires can’t melt iron? Why were there rivers of molten metal for weeks after? Why did the authorities ship off all the debris and destroy it and wait a year before finally, reluctantly making a bogus investigation, that still hasn’t explained building 7?

    Why were pieces projected half a mile away, lodging in other buildings? Why didn’t they stop building buildings like this given how fragile they apparently are? Why did the firefighters say it popped out “floor by floor” as though it was a controlled demolition? Why were the central columns left standing for several seconds after the floors and outside were stripped violently from it, not bringing these columns down initially?


    Why? Because Popular Mechanics said it meant nothing, that’s why!


  • Avatar

    AJ Virgo


    The Twin Towers were made from hardened steel beams around the outside and as the buildings collapsed onto the ground those beams were forced outward from the base undercutting the nearby buildings causing them to collapse.


  • Avatar

    AJ Virgo


    Most of us believe in the theory of evolution and no science was protected by the establishment more and still is today however, it is commonly believed that there are warehouses of fossil proof just sitting around but nothing could be further from the truth. Instructive to note that the latest thing in paleontology is “spontaneous evolution” because it would explain why not one single fossil ever found shows the theory to be correct!


  • Avatar

    Paul Clark


    The term “conspiracy theorist” is a lazy label applied to anyone who disagrees either with the labeller or the mainstream. It’s good to question the points raised.

    1. Never heard of him

    2. CFCs causing ozone hole is a hoax. First big global one that worked — paved the way for the AGW hoax.

    Greenhouse effect is a total hoax that defies both laws of thermodynamics. 1st law says that you can’t get energy for free, GHE says you can. 2nd law says heat can’t flow from cooler atmosphere to ground, GHE says you can.

    Anthony Watts too stupid to realise this, even as he mocks PSI for such.

    3. Kennedy was shot from front:



    4. Here’s where your post gets confusing and falls apart for me. The moon landing is obviously fake.

    Points offered in favour are the usual paltry ones. You seem to offer the usual appeal to popularity as proof of the legitimacy of the moon landings e.g. moon rocks which came from Von Braun’s expedition to Antarctica shortly before they occurred. You make a call to “scientific and technical facts” as though that phrase adds legitimacy to your claims that these landings were real; spare me.

    Retroreflectors prove nothing, they were bouncing stuff off the moon long before these tiny inconsequential reflectors were allegedly placed.

    As for the tracking of something by the Russians: what does that prove, they didn’t even have triangulation at that point?

    Apollo 17 takes off; obviously model on a string:


    Another model, supposed to be 2 tonne space craft:


    I cringe with embarrassment on behalf of Anthony Watts every time he makes a post affirming the legitimacy of these obvious moon landing hoaxes.

    5. Dead obvious that 3 buildings came down via controlled demolition on Sep 11: buildings 1, 2 & 7; + stand-down of US military.



    How did another patsy: Osama bin Laden arrange that? He did not claim responsibility and said there was a govt within a govt who did it. Then we have the bogus look-alike videos afterwards made for stupid people to believe he was responsible.

    Maybe that’s what you’re getting at in a round about sort of way?

    Bottom line is this: all of life is a test of perception of reality. Most “can’t handle the truth”, or are too stupid to realise the truth, so they prefer to shirk it.


  • Avatar



    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote]Written by Alberto Miatello: However, it would be too long to discuss here why GW is a pseudoscience, Readers can find dozen articles here at Principia Scientific International (PSI).[/quote]

    I can not recall a single PSI article where the alleged GW (global warming) or the “global temperature” thing in general are questioned.[/quote]

    Do you consider GW (global warming) to be established or, to use your word, just “alleged?” Is it necessary (or even possible) to question something that is only alleged?


  • Avatar

    Greg House


    [quote]Written by Alberto Miatello: However, it would be too long to discuss here why GW is a pseudoscience, Readers can find dozen articles here at Principia Scientific International (PSI).[/quote]

    I can not recall a single PSI article where the alleged GW (global warming) or the “global temperature” thing in general are questioned.


  • Avatar



    If you ask a Meteorologist what is the cause of storms they will tell you storms are caused by convection of “lighter” moist air through “heavier” dry air. If you ask them for the empirical support for this assertion they will make a statement insinuating, falsely, that there are hundreds of years of empirical evidence that substantiates this notion. When you point out that this “evidence” is not, in fact, empirical but anecdotal they will do their best to pretend (exactly like global warming whackos) they didn’t hear the question. If you press on they become increasingly belligerent. All in all, the more you attempt to explicate the severe lack of scientific support for their notion that storms are the result convection the more desperately political they become.

    When it comes to evading scientific discussion/debate and side-stepping empiricism, Climatology is just following in the well worn footsteps of Meteorology.


  • Avatar



    As I wrote in a comment in Jo Nova’s article “APS reconsiders its position on climate — Scientific storm on the way?”…
    “The only statement the new committee should put out is:
    “The APS is a scientific organisation, dedicated to the advancement of scientific knowledge. As such, the Society makes no statement of or judgement on social, economic and political policy, but will only encourage the exploration and examination of the physical world around us. No question is unacceptable and no vote determines fact. Only the scientific method and the data openly reported and tested from repeated experimentation and observation will demonstrate what is true and what is not.””


Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.