Hugh Johnson
Member
I just don't find that a satisfactory explanation. There is too much data for it to be used like that, and too many people on both sides with no actual powerstructure to inform people for that to happen. There is some influence, and it is very important when it comes to selling statins and faking the studies etc. but not with sugar.Many times they do not recognize the threat or even if they do there is not need to do anything in most cases. Like you said, even family structures often dislike/discourage truth seeking/telling and can effectively suppress such a person without any help from outside. If the person does manage to break through then it is quite easy to track their influence/impact these days. I mean, even Peat does most interaction with others electronically and that can be quite easily traced, quantified, assessed, etc. Google knows quite well how impactful say Peat's last newsletter was and Google has publicly admitted to selling "personal profile assessments" of any individual of interest to the government or anybody else with deep-enough pockets. That's kind of the main business o Google right now - i.e. not so much indexing the world's information but tracking individuals through public posts, emails (Gmail) or even "anonymous" searching. Same with Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft (whose Windows 10 OS by default track almost everything you do on your computer). Combine the information these 4 companies have on a person and you pretty much know how much of a threat they are to governments, to others, or even to themselves (e.g. mental illness, drug use, etc).
I posted about David R Hawkings' successes in orthomolecular psychiatry and the opposition he received from collegues and it made no rational sense. DH was making tons of money, was internationally respected and these people could have copied him or worked for him. Yet the psychiatrists found suppressing cures more important than money and fame. They definitely were not receiving direct orders from medical companies either, and those companies could not possibly pay them all off, not back then when they were not making such great money.
Same thing with discussing something like full employment with people. People with master's degree seem to often become incoherently angry while blue collar people easily understand the basic functioning of the monetary system when it is explained to them, and the political aspects of full employment. There is no one commanding these people, they consider themselves rational, yet there is an aggressive reaction.