The same occurs in climate studies. I once saw a government of Canada grant seeking a researcher to study “adverse effects of human induced climate change on Arctic wildlife“. Can anyone predict the conclusions from this “open” question?

Expand full comment

"If you put the government in charge of the desert, within 5 years there would be a shortage of sand."

Milton Friedman

Expand full comment

Ike was certainly a visionary leader. But who are the private players funding medical research? Bill Gates, Chan-Zuckerberg, etc. The problem is larger than big government. I would call it groupthink of the global elites.

Expand full comment

Unlike a lot of other moonshots, at least this cancer one has a plausible mechanism to work, in a "three wishes from a monkey's paw" sort of way. Just increase the number of cardiovascular deaths by X and you reduce the number of cancer deaths by ~ 0.6X. Competing risks, yadda yadda. A cynic might think it was chosen with more in mind than just reducing society's cancer burden.

Expand full comment

Scientists get money by shoe horning into popular topics. While doing my PhD in chemistry in the 1980s, cancer was the big money. No matter how remote or tenuous, all grant applications had to be related to synthesis of a cancer drug.

Expand full comment

Damn straight gato. I am thrilled you found your way to substack where long form rants like this are possible. That said, twitter is where I happened upon you when I realized at the very beginning of this covid horror show that we are being fed nonsense from "the science".

Incidentally, I never got to thank you/give you a shout out on twitter for one of my few outbursts (link below) that got attention because they had kicked you off by then but you inspire. I do not have data analytical skills like you and the several other gatopals but I can sniff out BS which is what we were getting from "the science" from the start and it continues to this day.

Keep typing. Keeping inspiring. It is making a difference.


Expand full comment

Watch this video starting from the 2:12:00 mark to the 2:46:00 mark.


Expand full comment

I just paid you $50 for the privilege of commenting on this post. I suppose I should convert my Substack to paid as well. I don't need the money, but everyone else seems to be doing it... It's aggravating to pay to add value... At least you don't make cringeworthy mistakes like Bret Weinstein, whose posts I no longer subscribe to, or Alex Berenson, who kowtowed to the Powers That Be. I hope I don't see similar here. If I do, I assume that's another $50 shot to hell - but at the present rate, that's about three dinners at the Mexican restaurant down the street.

In any case, Eisenhower was 14 years too late, there's nothing he could have done about it, the National Security Act of 1947, which created a National Security State, was passed in the Truman Administration. This created a double government, an unelected permanent government which actually ran the country, and reduced the elected government to a clown show - actually a Punch-and-Judy puppet show - to distract and divide the electorate. For details, see this essay by Professor Michael Glennon, of the Fletcher School at Tufts University: https://fletcher.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/pubs_glennon-michael-national-security-double-government.pdf. Of course, his suggestion that the unelected government can be got rid of by elections is nonsense, the Unelected Government controls the Elected Government, and not the other way around. And, for what it's worth, the Unelected Government is comprised almost entirely of registered Democrats. So if you wonder why throwing out one set of scoundrels in Congress and replacing them with another set results in absolutely no change in actual enacted policy, that's the reason - Congress is not in charge. The Constitution and Bill of Rights might as well not exist - they aren't the basis for any sort of *actual* government we have here, and haven't been for 75 years. Presidents like JFK who go off the reservation come to bad ends, replaced by more compliant people who are on the same page. And, of course, the National Security State is not only unconstitutional, it's a total betrayal of the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence. It's fundamentally anti-American. And there is no remedy either than a very unlikely popular revolt, or a Soviet Union-style collapse - my bet is on the latter. That's my two cents, I have $49.98 to go...

Expand full comment

I agree with almost everything except for the idea implied by statements like this: “ you won’t get better experts next time. all the good ones get sublimated off in the ideological rarefication process that concentrates science into “the science.”

The problem with technocracy is not that we pick the wrong experts, the problem is the trust in experts itself. There is no way to choose the right expert for any given situation. Problems are solved by allowing experts and non experts alike an attempt at creating a solution. The market will decide the best solution. People are not nearly as smart as they think they are, and the most dangerous are the people who are convinced they are right. I’m not even a believer in free markets and I am still convinced that a market economy will produce better solutions than a technocracy.

Expand full comment

I have thought for some time that the only way this juggernaut of grift can be stopped is to starve the beast.

It seems that this can only happen in two ways:

1. Abolish the Federal Reserve and income tax.

These are truly the two roots of this evil. They represent the greatest engines of mass theft in the history of mankind. None of this evil, and much besides, would be possible without these two infernal institutions.

2. Currency collapse.

Every single fiat currency in history has collapsed, driven by the unlimited and insatiable government desire for other people's money. Nixon cut the last ties to the gold standard, the only thing that can constrain government spending, in 1971, and the USG has been printing and spending like mad since then.

Since the FED was created in 1913, the USD has lost close to 99% of its value. What cost one or two cents in 1913 now costs a dollar.

Official government debt just surpassed 30T. Of course, like nearly all government figures, it is a lie. If unfunded liabilities are taken into account, it is in the many hundreds of trillions.

This is unsustainable, and therefore it will end. The only questions are when, and how bad it will be, and how many people the government will murder until it does.

Expand full comment

Gracias gato. Ive always thought this about the grants for climate science.

Also, I’m reading that the jabs are going to cause a surge in new and latent cancers. This will further feed the Pharma beast.

Expand full comment

I am thoroughly depressed by this. 😔

Expand full comment

The alarm siren starting screaming when Biden stated the "supercharged cancer eradication program" is going to utilize "mRNA" technologies. Jeez.....here we go again.

Expand full comment

I recall reading (but can't remember where) that originally Eisenhower's speech was supposed to refer to the "military-industrial-congressional complex" but "congressional" was dropped.

Expand full comment

"central allocators." brilliant. And I think you did this entire piece without using the word "stakeholder."

Expand full comment

Peer Review has similar problems in the scientific community, overlapping or inconclusive conclusions depending on scale and scope, and seems to lean towards confirmation bias.

Expand full comment

Take a close look at the NSF and it's charter: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense..." 25% of all science funding comes through the NSF. It's all driven by National Defense. That might not sound like much, but it is. I've heard that figure is closer to 85%, but I can't find a reference for that. 25% is what you'll find on the NSF homepage. Science projects that don't have a use applicable to national defense has a much tougher time getting approved. It's almost surely more than 25% in real life. Much, much more.

Expand full comment

Having just finished RFK Jr book on Fauci this is exactly where things have been for decades.

Expand full comment

The hubris of launching a "bold, 25 year plan" when literally everything else these idiots have done has been a cataclysmic failure, usually ruled illegal by SCOTUS.

I don't even expect these jokers to last another year in office (ballot printer goes brrr excepted, or GOP incompetence/corruption), never mind conduct lofty plans that'll take a quarter century.

Hey Joe, how about you see about getting a grip on inflation first eh? Maybe then you can play with the big boy toys.

Expand full comment

Pink washing cancer paints victims as heroes as a distraction from horrifying reality that it eliminates any question of causes. When EPA was created it was to manage toxic Superfund sites in USA w overwhelming global volume from PCBs. Susan B Komen is Former Neiman Marcus marketing wiz who turned the death of her sister and high end friends into global grift & cover op. https://www.bcaction.org/about-think-before-you-pink/

Primary responsibility assigned to General Electric now GE Healthcare empire & Monsanto who turned Rockefeller petro-chemical waste into profitable chemicals & myth of Green Revolution.

Billy Gates political heir to David Rockefeller sits atop NGO empire w high tech solutions that compound the problems.

Under Dubbya Bush in 2002 EPA Libraries were closed and Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data collection was halted. Oddly enough this happened just as questions arose about Ground Zero illness & EPA Dir Whitman assurances the air was "perfectly safe" experts were monitoring carefully.

Collection never resumed. Until 2020 UC Davis maintained Scorecard database, the recognized global authority for chemical safety. It was yanked in its entirety & replaced w note "This was the work of a small group and was helpful to many but support is discontinued. Poof, it's gone w only trace a domain registration to Underwriters Laboratory.


Don't look- don't find is what "The Science" demands. Big bucks in seeking cures, not so much in Superfund cleanup. Nothing to see after 9-11.. trust the experts in DC to have our backs and prioritize human health & safety..

"Over 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released by industry into the nation's environment each year, including 72 million pounds of recognized carcinogens.

Scorecard can give you a detailed report on chemicals being released from any of 20,000 industrial facilities, or a summary report for any area in the country. Scorecard spotlights the top polluters in the U.S., and ranks states and counties by pollutant releases. "


Scorecard - "If an industrial chemical is allowed by law to be released into the environment, most people assume that it must have been tested and evaluated for its potential risks. Unfortunately, this is simply not true.

"For most of the important industrial chemicals in U.S. commerce, government lacks the information to draw any scientifically based conclusion about the degree of risk--or lack of risk--that a chemical may pose when used. For every chemical in the database, Scorecard tells you whether or not the information needed to assess chemical risk is available. If it isn't, no one can accurately claim the chemical is "safe."


Equally tragic is 90% Fed employees at these agencies have their hearts in the core mission. Like the ethical refugees of the medical tyrants who have shown their fangs in the scamdemic, it's top tier, Agency leadership who steer the ship. Credit Clinton era (SES) Senior Executive Service. It facilitates top tier, revolving door for corp appointees & displacing career service as a requirement.

Expand full comment

Gatito Revisionista.

"All States are governed by a ruling class that is a minority of the population, and which subsists as a parasitic and exploitative burden upon the rest of society. Since its rule is exploitative and parasitic, the State must purchase the alliance of a group of Court Intellectuals, whose task is to bamboozle the public into accepting and celebrating the rule of its particular State. The Court Intellectuals have their work cut out for them. In exchange for their continuing work of apologetics and bamboozlement, the Court Intellectuals win their place as junior partners in the power, prestige, and loot extracted by the State apparatus from the deluded public.

The noble task of Revisionism is to de-bamboozle: to penetrate the fog of lies and deception of the State and its Court Intellectuals, and to present to the public the true history of the motivation, the nature, and the consequences of State activity. By working past the fog of State deception to penetrate to the truth, to the reality behind the false appearances, the Revisionist works to delegitimize, to desanctify, the State in the eyes of the previously deceived public."

~ Murray Rothbard

Expand full comment

Very insightful comments. Here are some of my thoughts, but I give no warranty on their worth. Please pardon the prolixity. Gato's article itself is quite lengthy. I wish my abundance of words were equally worthy, but perhaps not.

1. Government, though powerful, cannot overrule market forces, any more than it can repeal laws of Nature.

From one point of view, a market ALWAYS exists. This is even true in what I would call a false distinction: that the government has some magical power "over" the market, or that it is apart from it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government does in fact (usually) have superior legal powers, since it can pass, modify, repeal or ignore regulations at will. But in no way can the government escape the fact that it is a market participant, even if the most influential.

What is too easily forgotten is that government has no supernatural powers. By this I mean it cannot do anything beyond what reality allows. To borrow the old joke: A man says "I can summon demons from the deep." A skeptic retorts: "Yes, but do any demons come when summoned?" Many similar bits of wisdom can be found, like the tale of King Canute commanding the tide.

Returning to our topic, my point is merely that government is not some awe-inspiring God-like figure, able to do anything that it wishes. Yes, it is usually if not always the most powerful agent, but it is still constrained by laws which no power on Earth can repeal.

2. There is probably no structure created by man that will not be subject to capture by those who run it. This is simply an aspect of human nature. Individuals and groups tend to act in their own self-interest, even at expense of out-groups. Those entrusted with government power -- or those who seize it -- are not immune to this law. Surely there are ways to guard against, to limit these negative effects, but they are not perfect, and the countermeasures themselves are subject to being dismantled.

3. Perhaps the best answer would be less government? If there were no government funding of research, there might be less research. But what research occurred would be paid for by (presumably) private funds, not taken by coercion (taxes). Discoveries would be patentable, the property of their discoverers. People should be free to decide for themselves, or use any authority they wish, to obtain their medical care. Government should not be in the business of licensing, forcing, prohibiting, or otherwise restricting the invention, production, sale or use of any good or service for such treatments. Clearly there are many risks to such a laissez-faire system: lack of quality control, frauds, addictions, and so on. But on the upside, it would eliminate all the risks that Gato enumerates in his article. And why could there still not be government endorsed services? The government could even test, approve and guarantee the quality of drugs, perhaps. Perhaps legal recourse would be limited: People should be free to try untested or unapproved things, but perhaps they lose the right to sue if things go awry. But in no case should it have the power to forbid or mandate their uses. Those choices should be the right of individual States, or (ideally I'd argue) private physicians and their patients.

Note that not all is wine and roses: if you want to reduce government, you have to toss out a lot of "benefits" for the common citizen. Goodbye Medicare and other forms of socialized medicine. These can't exist without some degree of Government meddling in the private sphere.

Is Covid-19 better treated early with commonly available, inexpensive repurposed drugs? Quite possibly. But even if it isn't, it shouldn't be the government's business to tell me or my doctor that I can't buy ivermectin, HCQ or some other drug to use as I see fit. If I damage or kill myself, so what? It's my life and (in the world I paint) I would not become a wad of the State in any case.

I'm not denying that government provides some benefits. Personally, I like having (relatively) sound money (yet another government franchise captured early on!), a legal system (ditto), common defense (ditto) and other generally positive services the government provides. What government's role should be is an eternal debate. I did not mean for this post to become a libertarian treatise. Perhaps coercion (government power) is sometimes necessary. But in closing, allow me to point out that most successful systems man has created work because participation is voluntary and (optimally) the average member receives net benefit.

Expand full comment
Feb 4, 2022·edited Feb 4, 2022

In the first draft of Eisenhower’s speech he referred to ‘Military Industrial Congressional Complex’, acknowledging the rôle of Congress is facilitating the military industry… factories/jobs/votes in the Congressional districts plus of course the usual bribing that goes with lobbying. The reference to Congress was dropped fir political reasons to avoid antagonising its members.

It is worth noting that the incestuous relationship big business has with Government - corporate capture - is only possible with the willing participation, even initiated by, those in Government ever ready to dispense corporate welfare out of taxpayers’ money in return for graces and favours.

Expand full comment

Only now, long after 1961, do we truly understand the dire consequences of ignoring Pres Eisenhower's warning. Yes, we've been well aware of the unconscionable maneuverings of the MIC, but it took until this covid hoax to demonstrate the folly of ignoring his other, perhaps more important warning, about government control of scientific research funding. Now we know that, through Faucimengele, such funding can be dolled out to research that enriches those in power and imperils the health and welfare of the rest of us. Would that we had heeded his warnings.

Expand full comment

You are sooo right about this! Said as a practising scientist.

Expand full comment

Dreary, but true.

Expand full comment

We're so many generations of "leadership" post-Eisenhower. To hear that come from any politician may as well be to hear a tale of fantasy.

Expand full comment

I could not find a best fit for this web link, so here goes:


(Paywalled, but I listened to more of the article using the audio player.)

Some observations: I don't doubt that mRNA has promise. Credit where due: Unlike much of the media, the WSJ perchance retains a few scraps of respectability. The article even allows for a few lingering doubts, noting mRNA is "new and relatively untried technology", and at least in passing, gives glimpses that not all is well with the tech: "vaccines were available many months and possibly even years ahead of when health experts expected safe and effective traditional vaccines to arrive." (Note the author skillfully leaves hanging the question of whether the mRNA jabs are actually safe and effective; perhaps his deliberate intent.) Finally the audio program says: "The technology has been known for decades, but it was long relegated to the outskirts of medical research. Skeptics said it was too unstable to work as a prescription drug." Finally, it notes the Covid-19 products were the first ever cleared for use.

Now skepticism speaks: If this technology was known for decades, why was it not widely used? Were the skeptics right, that it was too unstable? Why was it suddenly approved against Covid-19? Were all the bugs fixed? Why not mention of proofs of long term safety or efficacy?" Etc. Credit to the author, for at least giving an alert reader the ability to read between the lines.

Expand full comment

I'm just riffing here, but I'll bet you a pair of comfy boots that Cancer Moonshot will involve mandating a bunch of experimental medicines going into everyone's body and anyone who refuses is a murderer who loves cancer.

Expand full comment

Fantastic insights. Have you thought about writing a book?

Expand full comment

As long as we are raking through our heroes of the fifties let’s not forget Ayn Rand. her ’solutions’ in Atlas Shrugged are certainly debatable, but boy, she had the villains down to a tee! They all sound like Blue Checks!

Expand full comment