Category Archives: politics

Scientific integrity requires critical investigation – not blind acceptance


Some people seem to want to close down any critical discussion of the current research into the relationship between water fluoride and child IQ. They appear to argue that claims made by researchers should not be open to critical review and that the claims be accepted without proper consideration of the data and evidence.

Anti-fluoride campaigners, of course, argue this way any time the research they promote is questioned. After all, they have a bias to confirm and an ideology to support and rely on claims that often don’t stand up to proper consideration. I expect that, but I am concerned to hear these arguments from scientific reviewers of this research.

In the video above Dr William Ghali of the Canadian O’Brien Institute for Public Health counters critiques of some research with the comment: “the studies can’t be undone and they can’t be unpublished.”

Of course they can’t – but they can, and should, be critically considered – not blindly promoted as the best things since sliced bread. Critical consideration is, or should be, the normal scientific reaction to newly published studies.

Dr Ghali is one of the authors of a recent review of the science around community water fluoridation, COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION: A REPORT FOR CALGARY CITY COUNCIL. He made the above comment during his presentation to a recent meeting of the Calgary City Council – the video above contains a section of his presentation (selected and promoted by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) an anti-fluoride activist organisation).

I am amazed at that comment – and other comments of his. I could understand if he was responding to the research critiques by explaining where they were mistaken or misinterpreted the evidence – we should always consider the factual evidence in our scientific discussions. But he seems personally upset that anyone should pursue a normal scientific critical discussion. He admits to getting angry at:

“The notion that you can just talk away 10 years of research.”

And

“I respect the doers of the research and the deliverers of the evidence and don’t think they should be shot for tough messages.”

Yet he himself is denying respect to scientists who critically discuss research (by authors that he appears to be protective of) and is attempting to “shoot” down researchers who discuss the problems in that research. He accuses scientific critics of attempting to  “simply sweep aside scientific findings because one disagrees with the results.” Yet he attempts to “sweep aside” the normal scientific critique of research – rather than deal specifically and factually with the criticisms themselves.

Sometimes it is necessary to “talk away 10 years of research” if the critical scientific consideration of the research findings show them to be faulty. We are talking about science – not religion.

Nothing sacred about scientific findings

There is nothing sacred about scientific findings – they are and always must be open for critical consideration and critique. Publication in a reputable journal and inclusion of big names in the author list is no guarantee of good science. And all scientific findings must be considered as provisional – most of what is considered factual in science often turn out to be wrong, at least in part. This is how science progresses and critical analysis and scientific critique of published work is key to that development.

Critique of published research is vital and it should never be ignored, “swept aside” or discredited by saying things like “once published it can’t be unpublished” of referring to critiques as “sweeping aside because one disagrees.” Good scientific critique is not swayed by authority or author’s claims but looks at the data, findings and interpretations – critically. It is not an evidence-free “sweeping aside.” In a good-faith open scientific exchange, the response to criticism should be the same.

Having said this I can understand a little of what is driving the two people in their comments in the above video – comments that are critical of scientific commenters but ignore the way the anti-fluoride movement has misused and misrepresented this research. The O’Brien review they were authors of was roundly criticised for its weaknesses when it was made public. On the other hand, the anti-fluoride advocates lavished it with praise – for these very same weaknesses.

Scientists are human (actually very human) and, of course, sensitive to criticism. Even the best scientist will often react defensively and attempt to discredit critics rather than deal with the contents of the criticisms.

Misrepresentations

The only time Dr Ghali gets at all specific in this video section is in his criticisms of the letter sent by 30 academic and health experts to the US National Insitute of Environmental Health Science (NEHS) about the study (see Experts complain to funding body about quality of fluoride-IQ research). This letter expressed concern about the study recently published by Green et al (2019) listing a number of specific scientific limitation of the study (see If at first you don’t succeed . . . statistical manipulation might help and Experts complain to funding body about quality of fluoride-IQ research)  The letter also expressed concern about the poor statistical reporting of the data and lack of transparency regarding methodology.

After listing ten scientific concerns the experts made a specific request:

“We urge NIEHS to ask the Green authors to release their RIF data set and provide a thorough explanation of their analytical methods. Doing so could enable an independent review that would bring clarity and ensure the scientific record is accurate.

Should the Green researchers not voluntarily release their data, please advise us on what the process would be to have the data set released so an independent analysis of the Green data can be conducted.”

But this is how Dr Ghali specifically commented on this important expert’s letter:

“Twenty or so North American academics [actually 30 North Americans and experts from the UK and Australia] wrote to the NIEHS denouncing the recent Canadian study critiquing it on many levels  Making assertions the team at York University refused any access to their data and their refusal to permit reanalysis and they are not being transparent. The allegation is false. The authors are in fact  in an active process of discussing with health Canada a Teflon bias-free process of making the data available for a secondary analysis. And again, there is one thing that gets under my skin are assertions, attacks on messengers.” [My emphasis]

Come off it. On the refusal to make data available the expert’s letter mentions only:

“In recent weeks, at least two of the Green authors have declined to respond affirmatively to requests from other researchers for access to the data and analytical methods they used.”

It did not “denounce” the study (scientific critique is not “denouncing”), and it definitely did not assert the whole team was refusing any access. It simply pointed out that no one at that stage had reacted positively to the request for access to the data. That is not, as Dr Ghali claims an “attack on messengers.” Nor is it, as he claims, a “false allegation.”

A respectful and scientifically ethical response to the expert’s letter would be for  Dr Ghali to consider and respond to the list of ten limitations of the study described in the letter. But instead, he has misrepresented the letter and made a false allegation himself regarding the request for access to data.

Where is the scientific integrity in that?

As an aside, I am a bit cynical about the authors’ claim that they are “discussing with health Canada a Teflon bias-free process of making the data available for a secondary analysis.” Dr Ghali appears to be in more intimate contact with the authors than the rest of the scientific community because this is the first I have heard of the authors’ response. But I fear the “Teflon bias-free process” referred to may, in the end, be a bureaucratic solution which makes the data available to only a select “trusted” few for their presumed approval.

The problem of transparency

Dr Ghali also misrepresents the letter by claiming it accuses the authors of lack of transparency. Yes, it expresses concern about the lack of statistical and methodological information but refers to this as a general problem in scientific publications, particularly where statistical analyses are involved. It even cites a published paper on this (Prager et al. 2019: Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. Brain Behav. 9(1): e01141).

Another example relates to reliance on p-values:

“The American Statistical Association has established six principles on the use and analysis of p-values, one of which states: “Proper inference requires full reporting and transparency.” By releasing the data and a detailed explanation of their analytical methods, the Green authors would enable the scientific community to better assess whether their choice of p-value was appropriate.”

All this is simply part of a good-faith scientific critique which should be normal in science and should never be squashed or prevented. Remember Ghali himself said messengers should not be shot for delivering a message.

But if we are to discuss the problem of transparency I am really concerned at the unwillingness of the authors, and their scientific defenders, to participate in a free good-faith scientific exchange on their findings.

I guess they can not be blamed for promoting their own research while being silent about its limitations, or for the fact that the journal which published their paper has a policy of not publishing any critiques of published paper after 4 weeks. But why should they promote their findings on social media but refuse to enter into any discussion on it?

For example, Rivka Green, the first author of the paper, opened a Twitter account where she promoted the paper. But when some discussion of the limitations started she withdrew and closed the account down.

In another example, a biostats PhD student at Pittsburgh university was making some general comments about the data in the Green paper on Twitter soon after its publication. But two of the authors approached his university department and supervisors and he was forced to delete his tweets. (This is information from the student  himself who is wary about going public because of this unpleasant exposure to academic politics and he is unsure of the consequences of making further comments).

I have had personal experience of the lack of transparency by Dr Chrsitine Till’s group (involved in the study reported by Green et al. 2019) and its supporters. My own critique of one of the early papers from the group (Malin & Till 2015) was denied consideration for publication in the publishing journal by the Chief Editor, Prof Grandjean, who publicly identifies with the group and the anti-fluoride movement (see Fluoridation not associated with ADHD – a myth put to rest). My critique was eventually published in another journal: (see Perrott 2018: Fluoridation and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a critique of Malin and Till (2015). British Dental Journal, 223(11), 819–822). Christine Till is aware of this critique but purposely ignores it whenever she or her coauthors cite Malin & Till (2015) in their publications (see, for example, ADHD and fluoride – wishful thinking supported by statistical manipulation?).

And what about the lack of transparency displayed by Dr Ghali himself. He misrepresented the expert’s letter – but was also very selective in referring to other reviews of this study. For example, in the video above, he mentioned the CADTH (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) review  on possible neurological effects of fluoride which was very critical of the Green et al. (2019) paper and quotes from two sections of the review which said:

“The evidence is weak due to multiple limitations  . . ” (p 5)  and “further well conducted research is needed to reduce uncertainty. ” (p 14)

But he ignores completely a more damning statement in the CADTH review which says:

“The study by Green et al., 2019 concluded that “maternal exposure to higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years.” (p. E1) This conclusion was not supported by the data” (page 12)

A disclaimer

I am very conscious that I have relied on only one section of Dr Ghali’s presentation to the Calgary City Council. And that this section was cherry-picked by FAN to present him as an ally in their anti-fluoride campaign. I have not had the time to look at the full video of his presentation yet – it is available on YouTube: Dr. Ghali (O’Brien Institute) – Full Calgary Presentation on Fluoride. However, I think the comments made on this specific section of his presentation stand by themselves and needed a response.

Dr Ghali may well have made criticisms of the misrepresentation of this research by FAN, by the anti-fluoride campaigners also presenting to the Calgary City Council and by anti-fluoride campaigners in general. After all, FAN, which made the selection for this video and is promoting it is hardly likely to include such criticism.

So to be fair to Dr Ghali and to support the proper good-faith scientific exchange I am talking about I will email him and offer him the right of reply to this article.

Similar articles

 

 

Bye, bye to the collusion lie

Sums it up, really.

MH17 tragedy- 5 years on

A recent video prepared by independent reporters places serious doubt on the scenario for the MH17 tragedy promoted by pro-western investigators.

Five years on from the MH17 tragedy and attribution of blame is still a huge problem confounded by political agendas.

In July 2014 the Malaysian Airline Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew died. A Dutch-led international Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has been investigating the tragedy with the aim of determining criminal blame. However, it’s investigation is plagued by geopolitical interests and the current claims of the JIT are unconvincing. Nevertheless, the JIT is planning to start criminal proceeding against four people connected with the separatist movement which rose up in Eastern Ukraine after the February 2014 coup in Kiev.

Geopolitical agendas were, of course, involved right from the moment the tragedy occurred with the USA, other NATO and western countries blaming the tragedy on separatist forces. An evidence-free narrative supported only by the anti-Russian and Russophobia ideologies existing in these countries.

Eventually, these narratives condensed into a story initially promoted by the NATO and Atlantic Council aligned Bellingcat “open source” internet investigation group. The JIT appeared to initially go with this story. Their public appeals for evidence were initially directed simply to confirm the story and no attempt appears to have been made to consider alternative scenarios.

The video above from independent journalist critiques the JIT approach. In particular, there is evidence of fraud in the video evidence collected by Bellingcat and in the telephone taps provided by the Ukrainian security service, the SUB.

I have been particularly concerned about political bias in the JIT. The unwillingness initially to include Malaysia in the team. The unwillingness to carry out investigations at the site – claims that security could not be guaranteed by local authorities are clearly wrong as the Malaysians were able to arrive at the crash site and take delivery of the recovered black boxes from local authorities.

Claims, by a member of the JIT at their most recent press conference (partially covered in the video above), that the Russian Federation refused to cooperate with the JIT were clearly wrong as evidenced by the reply from another member of the JIT to a question from a reporter. The Russian Federation has been providing data (much of it requiring declassification) from the beginning. In particular, they provided information (requested by the JIT) on the manufacture and deployment of the BUK missile used to shoot down the aircraft and also primary radar information related to the destruction of the aircraft (see Flight MH17 tragedy in Ukraine – new evidence).

While receipt of this crucial information by the JIT was acknowledged by one of the JIT spokespeople he seemed to argue that it was not considered because it didn’t fit with their preferred scenario (the missile system had been deployed in Ukraine, not the Russian Federation). The fact that such crucial information is being ignored (even after the JIT had made a public appeal for the information) just shows how political the investigation has become.

I think the politicisation of the JIT is disgusting. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for the 298 lives lost in this tragedy. Those lives and the feelings of surviving relatives should not be used in a blatant geopolitical game.

Unfortunately, the current international political climate probably means that the JIT with its current composition will be unable to bring justice to the victims of this tragedy and their relatives. The involvement of Ukraine (which had possession of the missile system used and political motivation to blame the Russian federation and separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk), the initial exclusion of Malaysia and recent statements by the Malaysian Prime Minister criticising the investigation) and the anti-Russian political alignment of other countries in the JIT (the Netherlands, Australia, and Belgium) simply make this impossible.

Surely a new, politically neutral, investigating team is the only way the victims and their families can get the justice they deserve.

Similar articles

 

 

 

Does international chemical watchdog cherry-pick evidence to confirm a bias?

Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons headquarters in The Hague. Image credit: Prensa Latina Ready Syria to Cooperate with Organization Against Chemical Weapons

Multinational bodies, like the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) usually have authority and appearance of objectivity because of their international and representative nature. But I have been disappointed with some of the OPCW reports because they relied on hearsay and appeared to suffer bias. They also usually lack transparency and suffer from lack of data. I have discussed some of this in my articles Another shonky OPCW chemical incident report on Syria and OPCW on Salisbury poisoning – one step forward, two back?

It is probably inevitable that a theoretically objective  or non-partisan organisation will, in practice, be influenced by political and geopolitical interests. Even so, I am shocked to discover that The OPCW may have resorted to cherry-picking evidence for their Final Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018, released on 1 March 2019.

Paul McKeigue, David Miller and Piers Robinson who are members of Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, revealed the cherry picking in their report Assessment by the engineering sub-team of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission investigating the alleged chemical attack in Douma in April 2018.

OPCW sidelines its own fact-finding engineers

Specifically the Final OPCW report ignored the findings of their own Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) Engineering Subteam that was part of the original investigation on the ground. Instead, the OPCW later contracted unidentified experts who provided the engineering analyses included in the final report.

These unidentified experts produced a different conclusion to that reached by the FFM engineering subteam as described in a leaked dcouyment from the subgroup (Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident-27-February-2019-1). That, in itself, is not surprising – consider how in criminal cases prosecutors and defence can produce their own experts to make completely opposite arguments.  But the OPCW should have at the very least acknowledged the two different conclusions from the two different groups. They should also have given more weight to the conclusions of the own subteam who were involved in the initial investigations rather than the contracted experts who relied only on second-hand data (and were possibly given a more limited mandate).

I wrote about the interim report on this alleged chemical attack and its misrepresentation by corporate media in my article Blatant misreporting of latest OPCW report on chemical weapons in Syria. The interim report considered the allegation that a chemical weapon had been used and concluded:

“No organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties.”

The notorious chlorine gas cylinders

However, it left open the possibility that chlorine gas had been used and this was considered in the final report which considered the two chlorine gas cylinders found at the site of the alleged chemical attack.

The two engineering reports relate to these chlorine gas cylinders. Whereas the original Fact-Finding Mission engineering subteam concluded that the chlorine gas cylinders had most probably been manually placed at the scene the anonymous experts later contracted by the OPCW appear to favour an explanation involving delivery by an aircraft.

From the report of the engineering subteam of the fact-finding mission – (Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident-27-February-2019-1)

The arguments and conclusions of the anonyous contracted enegineering experts are contained in the final report – Report of the Fact-Finding Mission Regarding the Incident of Alleged use of Toxic Chemicals as a Weapon in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018.

LOCATION 2

The above propaganda video from the White Helmets (allied with the jihadists in Douma) illustrates the position of this gas cylinder on a roof adjacent to a crater.

The anonymous contracted experts concluded the cylinder had been dropped onto the roof with sufficent kinetic energy to create the crater but not penetrate the roof. However the OPCW FFM subteam concluded from their modelling:

“that the alleged impact event or events leading to observed vessel deformation and concrete damage were not compatible.

A criss-cross pattern on the paintwork of the cylinder body, that had been attributed by some observers to the cylinder falling through the wire mesh, was inconsistent with the near-vertical angle of incidence that would have been required to create the crater.

Experts consulted to assess the appearance of the crater took the view that it was more consistent with a blast (from a mortar round or rocket artillery) than with an impact from the falling object. Similar craters were present in concrete slabs on top of nearby buildings.”

They concluded that the cylinder had more probably been manually placed in the location rather than dropped from an aircraft.

LOCATION 4

This cylinder has always appeared strange, lying on a bed in a room that was relatively undamaged.

The anonymous contracted experts concluded (or maybe assumed) the cylinder had been dropped from the air and come through the ceiling to land on the floor where it subsequently bounced onto the bed (see image below from the OPCW final report).

However the FFM engineering subteam concluded from their analyses and modelling:

“that the cylinder with intact valve and fins attached could not have fitted through the hole in the roof:

it was not possible to establish a set of circumstances where the post-deformation cylinder could fit through the crater with the valve still intact (whether or not an end-cap was assumed to have been fitted at the front end of the cylinder), and the fins deformed in the manner observed.”

Conclusions

I can understand how different assessment teams can come to different conclusions and it could well be that the anonymous contracted experts were asked to assume that the cylinders had been dropped and to model possible trajectories and dmagge. In contrast the intial FFM engineering team considered alternative hypotheses as well as air-dropped cylinders and specifically proposed the alternatives in their report.

Such modelling and conlcusions can’t help but involve a degree of speculation so it does not concern me that different conclusions were drawn. But I am very concerned that the OPCW final report ignored the findings of their own FFM engineering subteam. This indicates a degree of bias which should be unacceptable for such an international body.

The authors from the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media go as far as describing the issue as the hijacking of OPCW concluding:

“The new information we have removes all doubt that the organization has been hijacked at the top by France, UK and the US. We have no doubt that most OPCW staff continue to do their jobs professionally, and that some who are uneasy about the direction that the organization has taken nevertheless wish to protect its reputation. However what is at stake here is more than the reputation of the organization: the staged incident in Douma provoked a missile attack by the US, UK and France on 14 April 2018 that could have led to all-out war.

The cover-up of evidence that the Douma incident was staged is not merely misconduct. As the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of civilians, those in OPCW who have suppressed the evidence of staging are, unwittingly or otherwise, colluding with mass murder.”

Other commentary on the OPCW FFM Engineering subteam report:

Similar articles

Psychology of Russiagate – an adult discussion for a change

This is a fascinating interview – and not only because it is a highly respected independent journalist, Aaron Maté, interviewing his highly respected mental health expert father, Dr. Gabor Maté. It is fascinating because it is objective and adult – unlike so much of the Russiagate reporting. It is an adult discussion.

I have been shocked at how people I thought should know better got caught up in the Russiagate hysteria. This interview helps me understand the psychology behind such unthinking acceptance of what I saw from the beginning was a diversion away from the real issues and an unthinking excuse for an election result which did not conform to predictions. This whole approach has prevented liberal and democratic forces from addressing the real problems they have. It has disarmed them at a time when a more intelligent approach is needed if Trump is to be defeated in 2020.

Well, I have often said that humans are not a rational species, more a rationalising one. I should have not been surprised at the way apparently rational people ended up being emotionally driven. Dr. Gabor Maté explains how we all succumb to such approaches when facing trauma like the election of a Donal trump.

I advise readers who do not have time to watch this very important interview to read Caitlin Johnstone’s article about it – This Talk Between Aaron & Gabor Maté Is The Best Political Video I’ve Ever Seen.

Similar articles

 

Russiagate – Some insights into its origins and results

Chris Hedges interviews Aaron Mate, one of the few independent reporters who was never taken in by the Russiagate hysteria and doggedly followed the evidence. Now vindicated by the Mueller investigation, which found no evidence of collusion, Aaron Mate analyses the origins of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and the way corporate media, and much of the alternative media, handled it. He argues that Russiagate turned out, in the end, to be a great gift to Trump and will help him with the 2020 presidential elections.

I believe this is an important interview which should help clarify many for the problems people have had with US politics over the last few years.

Similar articles

Russiagate: Lessons for the media. But will they listen?

How is this anything but a form of racism? Racism is never acceptable – and this coming from within the US intelligence community.

Frankly, I don’t think the corporate media will listen. Or draw conclusions from the main finding of the Mueller report. At the moment they seem too busy shifting goalposts and denying they ever promoted a collusion narrative.

This week we have the extraordinary spectacle of Paul Thomas, A NZ Listener journalist, cherry-picking his own articles to deny he ever promoted the collusion myth (See “The Cult of Trump,” NZ Listener, April 13-19, 2019). This “journalist” – and the Listener – pushed weekly articles promoting the myth to the extent of regularly including photographs of Russian President Putin in his articles about Trump. He let his naive partisan anti-Trump rhetoric get away so badly he even wrote an article linking the Christchurch Mosque shootings to Trump (seeFollow the leader, NZ Listener).  At a time when the rest of the nation was grieving.

It seems to me a whole raft of “journalists” abandoned the ethical basis of their profession and simply promoted an “official” narrative handed to them from above. I cannot respect such people.

In contrast, there were evidence-based independent and alternative journalists who got it right. These journalists were ignored, and worse – vilified, by corporate media. We should draw some lessons from their experience.

Fortunately an article in Fair – Tips for a Post-Mueller Media from Nine Russiagate Skeptics – gives a much-needed start to the needed examination. Generally described as “Russiagate skeptics” (not all independent journalist or alternative media followed the evidence) nine of these journalist offer advice to the media.

I will summarise their advice in a single sentence for each journalist but urge readers to read their full comments in the linked article. Their explanations are valuable

1. Encourage debate and dissent, not conspiracy theories and clicks.

—Aaron Maté, journalist, The Nation


2. Stop playing into Trump’s hands and stop smearing reporters.

Matt Taibbi, journalist, Rolling Stone


3. Stop spreading Russophobic paranoia.

Yasha Levine, journalist, S.H.A.M.E. Project


4. Talk to people with an actual understanding of history and Russia, not fake experts and uninformed  pundits.

Carl Beijer, writer


5. Don’t manipulate the truth to justify war.

Rania Khalek, journalist, host of In the Now


6. Be skeptical toward government officials and other authorities.

Branko Marcetic, journalist, Jacobin


7. Focus on the many actual crimes.


Esha Krishnaswamy, lawyer, host of historic.lypodcast


8. Pay attention to whom Trump is actually colluding with.

Kyle Kulinski, host of the Kyle Kulinski Show


9. Stop fear-mongering and engaging in “acceptable” bigotry.

Jimmy Dore, comedian, host of the Jimmy Dore Show


These people need to be listened to.

Similar articles

Aftermath of the Mueller report – the media starts looking at itself

Once again I am seeing vindication, a bit unexpected I must say because it involves the media analysing its own faults.

The Al Jazeera media programme, The Listening Post, today covered a few home truths about the media behaviour over the Russiagate conspiracy theory. What heartens me is that for the first time I get to see some of the independent journalists I have followed over the last two and a half years. Journalists like Aaron Maté who followed the evidence (in this case the lack of evidence), resisted the pressure to stick with the official narrative – and got attacked for it. Treatment of independent journalists by corporate media over this issue has been disgusting.

For the first time, I get to see a balanced (“balanced” in the sense the views of three Russiagate sceptics and two promoters are covered).

I don’t for one minute think this is anything more than an isolated case of responsible media coverage of the corporate media behaviour and, frankly, hysteria. It is nothing more than a start. A lot more must be done.

Similar articles

Mueller report to be released mid April – but it will be redacted

I am being urged by some commenters not to feel vindicated yet about the results of the US Special counsel investigation into charges of collusion between the Trump team and the Russian Federation (see Getting out alive – why we should always demand evidence). Perhaps not surprising as there is a small chant going around – “wait till you see the full report.” Although I notice no one was chanting that when the corporate media was going wild with their own conspiracy theories at multiple times over the last two and half years (see Collapse of the “Russiagate ” myth exposes how corporate media has failed).

It looks like the report will be released in mid-April. The US Attorney General makes clear there will be redactions – probably no surprise to the sensible person. But I can see the conspiracy theorists beam in on these to keep their collusion narrative alive. However, I can’t see that particular conspiracy theory will get a lot of traction as it is simply turning the outlandish into a complete farce.

Here is the letter which describes what sort of redactions we can expect:

Interestingly the President will not exercise veto power and the report will not be submitted to him for “privilege review.”

I guess it was too much to hope for though. There will be redaction of sections which “the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources and methods.” Given the role of at least part of the intelligence community in fostering the Russiagate hysteria, I would have thought it was essential to investigate its behaviour.

As I said, too much to hope for.

Similar articles

Collapse of the “Russiagate ” myth exposes how corporate media has failed

We have had to put up with this emotional rubbish from corporate media for two and a half years. Evidence-less conclusions presented as fact and huge pressure to adopt the narrative they posh. The video may have selected from US TV sources – but it has been wider than that – stretching to all media forms and to other countries.

And some people have criticised me for feeling vindicated because when I pointed out the Emporer had no clothes I was right (see Getting out alive – why we should always demand evidence)!

As for the plea that I wait for the publication of the full Mueller report – isn’t that disingenuous when those making the plea did not wait? They simply succumbed to pressure to adopt the narrative offered and gave in to group thinking? I can’t help raising the question to those making these pleas –  “what will be the deflective argument used when the full report is published?”

No, we have had to put up with this BS for two and half years and corporate media did not wait for evidence during all that time – worse they distorted and misrepresented any evidence to fit it to their own partisan narrative. They used vague references to “anonymous sources” to justify their bias – that must be one of the oldest trick in the propaganda manual.

The few independent journalists who resisted this pressure to conform were vilified. Accused of being supporters of Trump, “Putin’s useful idiots,” etc. They were smeared. Described as conspiracy theorists – by the very media and their stenographers pushing the most ridiculous conspiracy theory of all, the installation of a Manchurian candidate in the White House.

Those independent journalist are feeling vindicated – and they are rubbing it in. I cannot blame them.

Sure, I am always open to new evidence and I am sure the Mueller report will contain a lot of that. But the main message pushed by corporate media over the last two and half years has been destroyed. The report itself says:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

The corporate media and the stenographers it employees should take a long hard look at itself. Some (anly a few) of them have – even acknowledging the practice of justifying claims by reference to anonymous sources should stop. But I am not holding my breath.

Similar articles