The credibility of all science journals by now has been stained with a big question mark as their incompetence and undisclosed corporate/political affiliations are observed across the world. Nature, one of the most “prestigious” science journals, was recently seen engage in active propaganda serving the globalist establishment.
Along with scientific papers, Nature also publishes opinion articles, book reviews, and other writings. In the News section, on 27th of May 2020, the journal published Amy Maxmen’s opinion piece “What a US exit from the WHO means for COVID-19 and global health.” The write-up expresses concern over President Trump’s decision to cut off the US funding for the World Health Organization (WHO) in wake of the organization’s questionable handling of the COVID 19 emergency. The post is a jumble of statements from different health “experts” without much substance or specific evidence to back up the claims made by those “experts” and the author of the post.
First, the writer tries to discredit President Trump by referring to an issue with the phrasing of a letter tweeted by the President on May 18 wherein he criticized the WHO for not taking timely action to address the impending COVID 19 crisis. Though Trump didn’t state in the tweet the reports were published in The Lancet in December 2019 (which some pointed out), assuming if he did make the error about the date, his criticism of WHO remains valid. WHO did not do anything about stopping or restricting the so-called “pandemic” and only called it so in third week of March.
Secondly the writer does something which many propagandists do: make claims without including specifics or linking to sources that provide those specifics. She writes:
The journal also refuted other allegations in the letter, concluding that the claims are “damaging to efforts to strengthen international collaboration to control this pandemic.”
Refuted other allegations? And what allegations would they be? The writer doesn’t say a word about it but rushes on to repeat what the journal said.
The writer then moves on to repeat the views of WHO that run counter to the policy of the Trump administration and decry the President’s decision with the claim that it would hurt WHO’s health projects in many parts of the world. Well, this IS the point of slashing WHO’s funding—to question its worldwide practices not just in COVID 19 crisis but elsewhere because WHO has shown that it doesn’t hold credibility.
Later in the post, the writer says:
More than the money, researchers worry about the loss of collaboration.
This again is beating about the bush because collaboration with a suspect or questionable partner doesn’t make sense. In fact, reliance on such a partner is counter to good work ethics. Researchers should be independent of other groups in both means and finances otherwise they become operatives of the same web. Interestingly the writer goes on to say that China is going to fund the WHO with $2 billion for coronavirus response. Thus the writer’s own story shows that it’s all about money and as she continues to repeat the emphasis on funding the WHO, she cites one of her “experts” named Lee again, saying:
“If the US pulls out and leaves a vacuum, it will be filled by other countries, like China,” she says. “You’ll see a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
So the post’s propaganda position in favor of WHO defeats itself by admitting that the WHO is a slot machine and whoever puts more coins in there, owns it. And if you refuse to play the machine, it’ll be your loss because others will own it.
But who gives a damn about owning a machine that you don’t want to own anymore? That is where the writer’s “expertise” collapse.
Amy Maxmen’s post in Nature is lame propaganda serving globalist establishment and particularly the WHO. It scores 10/10 on Skepticle Scale.
Ernie's Take 