Archive for the ‘Carnegie’ Category

Dr. Lynn Margulis has a PhD in genetics and was a member of both the National Academy of Science and the Russian academy of science. She was also awarded the National Medal of Science in 1999.

Lynn Margulis on her life, Symbiogenesis, Gaia Theory, Scientific Practice and Effects of Money…

A helpful reminder from Dr. Lynn Margulis regarding what true science is.

“The thing that is most important about science is that it’s a way of knowing that anyone can participate in, of course they have to have some background developed there, but it’s at the end of any kind of science activity, people will agree that they have collected evidence that illustrates a hypothesis and if the evidence is contradictory to the hypothesis, one has to abandon that hypothesis and look for another one. And one must, in testing any hypothesis, or trying to establish it, consider all of the relevant evidence which can come from all kinds of places, observations, measurements, and so on, and so far as people can be objective at all, they will all come to the same sorts of conclusions. Science is a fundamentally useful and accurate and universal way of finding out about the world. So scientists collect information, data, observations, and measurements around an idea that’s being tested for its validity and if all of these observations and measurements corroborate and are consistent with the basic idea, the idea then has got to be published and be available in an open and transparent way that others can criticize.

If the hypothesis is really correct, the criticisms stand up, that is, a scientist has no better friend than valid appropriate critics to whom they respond and if the criticisms lead to abandonment of the hypothesis because the facts don’t fit the idea then the hypothesis must be abandoned and replaced with something more adequate and as science goes on, the adequacy of the basic idea and hypothesis is corroborated over and over again by lots of people from lots of angles and usually generates sub hypothesis or related ideas that can also be investigated, but of course, science is never secret when it’s done right. I would say that there’s no bad science. There’s just lots of things that are called science that aren’t science because science is self-correcting and involves many people over and over again by the same observations or observations that are generated by the hypothesis itself. Anyway, these are rules that International scientific people all agree on. Science isn’t science if it’s not published and made available for criticism by anyone who feels they can criticize it.”

There’s a reason US citizens can’t find truth. They are not taught the basic principles of reasoning and an introduction to the scientific method and most only receive information from one centralized source. The refusal to examine any additional evidence presented from additional sources is the best evidence that we are no longer living in a democracy at all. Many US citizens even refuse to examine any evidence that is counter to a national system of secrecy with zero transparency. Willful blindness to examining the interests of those in “authority.” They easily fall prey to authority fallacy. The use of the term “national security” to conceal evidence from the working class people who pay taxes and are the ones directly impacted by government laws and policies is the best evidence that democracy no longer exists and is only an illusion.







She was a huge threat to our ruling class capitalists that have perverted science. Dr. Margulis challenged the orthodox “neo-Darwinist” perversion of science.

Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species destroys the capitalist perversion of science that created the justification for its existence, power, and control.


“The Trouble with Biology” is explained by Dr. Lynn Margulis below







Capitalists have been perverting science for a very long time.

“The idea that the theory of natural selection was an appropriate basis for understanding and governing human societies originated with the English libertarian philosopher Herbert Spencer, the man who originated the phrase “survival of the fittest.” He argued that natural selection would eventually produce a perfect society, but only if it had free reign to operate so that the unfit could be eliminated. To that end he opposed public education, compulsory smallpox vaccination, free libraries, workplace safety laws, and even charitable support for the “undeserving poor.”

Such views, later labeled “Social Darwinism,” were eagerly adopted by defenders of unfettered capitalism. John D. Rockefeller famously told a Sunday school class in New York City:

The growth of large business is merely a survival of the fittest… The American Beauty rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it. This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.33

Engels was scathing in his rejection of attempts to apply biological laws to human society. In a letter to the Russian socialist Pyotr Lavrov in 1875, he pointed out that the “bourgeois Darwinians”—referring to a political current in Germany that claimed to be applying Darwin’s views—first claimed that the political concept “survival of the fittest” applied to nature, and then reversed the process:

All that the Darwinian theory of the struggle for existence boils down to is an extrapolation from society to animate nature of Hobbes’ theory of the bellum omnium contra omnes [war of all against all] and of the bourgeois-economic theory of competition together with the Malthusian theory of population. Having accomplished this feat … these people proceed to re-extrapolate the same theories from organic nature to history, and then claim to have proved their validity as eternal laws of human society. The puerility of this procedure is self-evident, and there is no need to waste words on it.“


How have they perverted science?

Medical Apartheid by Harriet A. Washington (Fellow in ethics at Harvard Medical School and a fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health.) Book excerpt.

“The twentieth century saw the dawn of the medical philosophy eugenics, derived from the Greek word eugenes, meaning “well-born.” The word was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin….

Eugenicists promulgated the weeding out of undesirable societal elements by discouraging or preventing the birth of children with “bad” genetic profiles. The term “well-born” has a double meaning of “born healthy” and “born wealthy,” and this is fitting because eugenic scientists and their disciples constantly confused the concepts of biological hereditary fitness with those of class and race. Highly educated persons of good social class were considered eugenically superior; the poor, the uneducated, criminals, recent immigrants, blacks, and the feebleminded were eugenic misfits. Eugenicists invoked the term “racial hygiene” as frequently as they did the word “eugenics,” and even a cursory glance at the charts, photographs, and diagrams used to popularize eugenic ideals reveals that the unfit were “swarthy” “black” and ugly by Ango-Saxon standards, with flattened noses, wiry hair, and prognathous profiles…

German doctors became obsessed with regaining an imaginary Nordic purity even before the 1933 rise of Hitler and National Socialism. But U.S. national eugenic policies had employed unconscionable medical violations against those they considered unfit, including blacks, since 1910. The lions of American and German eugenics were united not only by a shared vision of racial purity but also by the International Society for Racial Hygiene. Chief among its American members was mathematician and biologist Charles Davenport, PhD., who established the Station for Experiment Evolution (SEE) and, in 1910, the privately funded and seminal Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island, New York, which joined with the SEE in 1920 under the aegis of the Carnegie Institution.

In 1897 Dr. Alonzo McClennan opened a hospital and nurse training school and, by 1916, Dr. Matilda Evans of South Carolina had opened three different hospitals there. Eventually, seven African American medical schools joined these to provide the long awaited entree to medical education for African Americans. In 1908, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching invited the influential Abraham Flexner to critique the nation’s 147 medical schools. When Flexner’s report was published two years later, it damned all but two black medical schools—Howard and Meharry—as substandard, sounding the death knell for the others, which subsequently found it impossible to attract funding. By 1924 only Howard and Meharry remained open….The Germans are beating us at our own game,” Virginian eugenicist Dr. Joseph S. Dejarnette sighed in thinly veiled admiration during a 1934 speech in which he urged the Virginia legislature to expand its sterilization laws.”


Who exactly was Abraham Flexner?

Flexner was born in Louisville, Kentucky on November 13, 1866. He was the sixth of nine children born to German Jewish immigrants, Ester and Moritz Flexner. He was the first in his family to complete high school and go on to college. In 1886, at age 19, Flexner completed a Bachelor of Arts in classics at Johns Hopkins University, where he studied for only two years. In 1905, he pursued graduate studies in psychology at Harvard University, and at the University of Berlin. He did not, however, complete work on an advanced degree at either institution. Flexner had three brothers named Jacob, Bernard and Simon Flexner. He also had a sister named Rachel Flexner. The success of Abraham Flexner’s experimental schooling allowed him to help finance Simon Flexner‘s medical education at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. He proceeded to become a pathologist, bacteriologist and a medical researcher employed by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research from 1901 to 1935

Writings by Abraham Flexner‘s brother, Bernard Flexner provide insight – The Rights to a Jewish Home Land, The Nation, October 2, 1929. (You cannot understand Israel without understanding the technologies the capitalists were profiting from and expanding.)

Bernard Flexner (1865–1945), a New York lawyer, was a prominent member of the Zionist Organization of America. He served as counsel for the Zionist delegation to the Paris Peace Conference (1918–1919) and was president of the Palestine Economic Corporation. He was one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Simon Flexner, M.D. (March 25, 1863 in Louisville, Kentucky – May 2, 1946) was a physician, scientist, administrator, and professor of experimental pathology at the University of Pennsylvania (1899–1903). He served as the first director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (1901–1935) (later developed as Rockefeller University) and a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. He was also a friend and adviser to John D. Rockefeller Jr. Among Flexner’s most important achievements are studies into poliomyelitis

A National Scandal

In 1910, Medical Chaos and Crime by Norman Barnesby, M.D. was a national bestselling book.  It exposed the rampant criminal behavior and the corruption capitalism and the pharmaceutical industry was having on the healthcare system in the United States. Here’s an excerpt from the 1910 bestseller.

Excerpts from Chapter 1: The Reign of “Graft.”

This book is mainly an exposure of the abuses that exist in the medical profession in this country, abuses that not only degrade the practice of medicine, but contribute not a little to the physical and moral deterioration of the American people. It would be futile to attempt to estimate the amount of human suffering caused by ignorance, incompetence, commercialism, and criminal indifference of those who call themselves disciples of Esculapius, but the evil may at least be pointed out and denounced, and this is what I have done. I presume that the result will be accounted sensational, although I have scrupulously striven to avoid any exaggeration, and I have endeavored to present both sides of every question discussed.

I have dealt rather briefly with what is known to the general public as medicine proper, that is, internal medicine, while surgery, gynecology and obstetrics occupy eight chapters, and repeatedly recur in nearly every other chapter in the book. This was not my original intention, but it happened that the surgical chapters were written first, and so overran the space allotted to drugs…..

A well-known physician, an acquaintance of mine, practising in New York City, whose reputation is of the best, told me recently that his great success in medicine was not due to any unusual skill or knowledge, but to the fact that he was “a damned good business man and knew when to take advantage of the other fellow’s ignorance.” After further investigation of my friend and his methods, I discovered that he was rated so highly because he could cure the ills he personally caused. For a patient to consult him and get away without having to return is almost unheard of. His first diagnosis when he finds that the patient is a driveling hypochondriac is “stomach trouble,” “gastric catarrh,” or some other reverberating name, which means nothing in particular, but greatly impresses the patient. His first treatment in such a case, almost without exception, is to administer to this poor creature large and repeated doses of potassium iodide in some form, with instructions to return if he feels nausea, headache, pain, or a bad taste in the mouth.

Now it happens that potassium iodide, given in large and repeated doses and taken with a small quantity of water, causes these exact symptoms, viz., nausea, headache, pain in the stomach and a bad tasting mouth. Consequently the dupe goes back for relief, financial and otherwise, and so the iodide is gradually reduced, while the pocketbook is being relieved of its contents. In the course of the second or third week the poor, frail, shadow of a patient wanders into the office once more. My friend now takes pity upon him by withdrawing all of the iodide, thus effecting a brilliant cure of the disease with the high-sounding name. The delighted patient, naturally, is most grateful. Having other friends afflicted with stomach trouble, he tells them of the clever doctor who has dragged him from the jaws of death. They, too, flock to the master physician, and of course are eventually “cured,” the time in each case depending on the limit of patience and the extent of the bank account…..

The next case, related to me by Doctor H. of New York, illustrates the shameless greed too often associated with deathbed consultations. “I went into a small cigar store, the other day,” remarked H., “and was roundly abused by the proprietor when he found I was a doctor. I asked him what he meant, and he told me that his wife had recently died, and that the family doctor had insisted on calling in six specialists for consultation.

“ ‘He called those men in,’ said the poor fellow, ‘and all the money I had in the world was eleven hundred dollars. The first demanded three hundred dollars, and the rest of them got the balance. They were called in and paid within twenty-four hours, and at the end of that time my wife was dead and I was obliged to borrow money to bury her.’”

This seems almost incredible, but Doctor H. made enquiries and found the man’s story to be substantially correct. The family doctor, of course, had received a commission on all the fees collected, in addition to his own bill.

No less reprehensible, though more frankly brutal, was the conduct of the noted surgeon in the following case of appendicitis, which I select from score of similar instances because of the unusually high reputation of the hero thereof:—
Mr. and Mrs. K. were a young Chicago couple just beginning to get a start in the world. Their little home was partly paid for. Only a thousand dollars was needed to clear their mortgage, and this they had succeeded in getting together, by dint of much saving and self-denial, when the wife suddenly developed an acute attack of appendicitis. Her husband was greatly alarmed, and made enquires as to who was the best surgeon in Chicago. He was recommended to one of the best surgeons in the country, whom we will call Doctor Y. So he rushed to the doctor’s office and begged him to come at once to see his wife. Doctor Y. said he would come without delay, and the young husband hurried home to await his arrival.

Meanwhile, Doctor Y. made enquiries over the telephone as to K.’s financial condition, and soon found out about the thousand dollars in the bank. With this information, he visited and examined Mrs. K. The case was one of acute (catarrhal) appendicitis, as he had conjectured from the somewhat incoherent description of the husband. Turning to the latter, he said in his very forceful and emphatic manner: —
“This is a bad case of appendicitis; if she is not operated on at once, she will die.”

The reader can imagine the consternation that ensued. Of course the husband implored the doctor to do everything possible to save his dear one’s life. This was the psychological moment, as Doctor Y. well knew. So he replied, brusquely :—
“All right, Mr. K., the operation will cost one thousand dollars, and I must have the money before I begin.”

Poor K. gasped. He knew that great surgeons do not ordinarily operate for mere glory or gratitude, but he had never expected anything like this. His struggle was short, however, for he loved his wife. Doctor Y. was the best surgeon in Chicago, and Mrs. K. should have his services as long as he could foot the bill. So with a sigh of regret as he thought of the home passing from them, and of the years of hard struggle to come, he agreed to the doctor’s rapacious fee. Doctor Y. came again that evening with his assistants, and performed the operation, and performed it well. It was all over in less than twenty minutes, and when he left the house he carried Mr. K.’s hard-earned savings.

Doctor Y. is unquestionably a great surgeon. His skill and fame have brought him cases from all over the country, and he is a wealthy man. He did not need this thousand dollars; it meant almost less to him than a dollar meant to the poor clerk. How much manlier it would have been to have offered to take the patient to his clinic and operate on her free of charge, or else to have performed the operation at the house for a nominal fee of, say, a hundred dollars! But that would not have been “good business,” and personal sacrifices, unless of a spectacular character, do not often appeal to the rich and famous.

So naturally, Carnegie and Rockefeller needed to protect their pioneering pharmaceutical markets rooted in coal tar and benzene so they made certain that all medical teaching institutions taught pharmacology instead of the pioneering field of toxicology and institutions that taught nutrition. It was full speed ahead with their capitalist technologies and they found the man to assist them in closing down all medical teaching institutions that did not serve their capitalist interests.

Enter Abraham Flexner – After graduating from Johns Hopkins University in two years with a degree in classics, Flexner returned to Louisville to teach classics at Louisville Male High School. Four years later, Flexner founded a private school in which he would test his growing ideas about education. Flexner opposed the standard model of education that focused on mental discipline and a rigid structure. Moreover, “Mr. Flexner’s School” did not give out traditional grades, used no standard curriculum, refused to impose examinations on students, and kept no academic record of students.

In 1910, Flexner published the Flexner Report, which examined the state of American medical education and led to far-reaching reform in the training of doctors. The Flexner Report led to the closure of most rural medical schools and all but two African-American medical colleges in the United States, given his adherence to germ theory, in which he argued that if not properly trained and treated, African-Americans and the poor posed a health threat to middle/upper class whites. His position was:

The practice of the Negro doctor will be limited to his own race, which in its turn will be cared for better by good Negro physicians than by poor white ones. But the physical well-being of the Negro is not only of moment to the Negro himself. Ten million of them live in close contact with sixty million whites. Not only does the Negro himself suffer from hookworm and tuberculosis; he communicates them to his white neighbors, precisely as the ignorant and unfortunate white contaminates him. Self-protection not less than humanity offers weighty counsel in this matter; self-interest seconds philanthropy. The Negro must be educated not only for his sake, but for ours. He is, as far as the human eye can see, a permanent factor in the nation


You can learn all about Rockefeller’s medicine men. They were designed to sell and expand his capitalist products while ignoring their massive biological and ecological harm to the working class.

Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America by E. Richard Brown



What is science? The distinguished Dr. Lynn Margulis explains in this video why the investigation into the 9/11 crime investigation was not a scientific investigation at all.

In early 2010, she wrote an article on WTC 7 entitled “Two Hit, Three Down — The Biggest Lie.” Asking: “Why did three World Trade Center buildings (#1,#2 and #7) collapse on 9/11, after two (and only two) of them were hit by ‘hijacked airplanes’?”, she gave the scientific answer:

“Because . . . the steel columns were selectively melted in a brilliantly-timed controlled demolition. Two 110-story buildings (towers 1&2), plus one 47-floor building (WTC 7), were induced to collapse at gravitationally accelerated rates in an operation planned and carried out by insiders. The apparent hijacking of airliners and the crashing of them into the Twin Towers were intrinsic parts of the operation, which together provided a basis for claiming that the buildings were brought down by Muslim terrorists. The buildings’ steel columns, which would have provided irrefutable physical evidence of the use of explosives, were quickly removed from the scene of the crime.”

But much more difficult than the scientific question, she said, is the “science-education problem”:

“The persistent problem is how to wake up public awareness, especially in the global scientifically literate public, of the overwhelming evidence that the three buildings collapsed by controlled demolition. . . . We, on the basis of hard evidence, must conclude that the petroleum fires related to the aircraft crashes were irrelevant (except perhaps as a cover story).”

“Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork. Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization. I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.” – Lynn Margulis















Read Full Post »