Science in Industrial Times

Patrick Quinten


Every part of our lives is construed around what we have come to accept as science. The word is used to, so called, underpin all aspects of life, which means that you and I are not supposed to question any of it. It’s science, you know! Science has proven it, so what is there to question? And as we have come accustomed to bowing our heads in acceptance we even fail to notice that the same ‘science’ over time can quickly change its mind and tell us something completely different. The same source that was hiding behind one truth is now swiftly switching to the opposite truth and all of this is still called science. Our knowledge is advancing, so science is advancing too. In reality, science has become an exercise in truth instead of an investigation into the reality of life.

We can define science as any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. So, it’s about the physical world, not artificial intelligence. So it’s about observation of that physical world. This can only properly be done when one is not interfering with the process that one is observing. Interfering with the process is part of experimentation, of testing a theory about the observations one has made. The NASA Space Agency defines science as consisting of observing the world by watching, listening, observing, and recording. Science is curiosity in thoughtful action about the world and how it behaves. So, observe without interfering. Record your observations. And then what?

Anyone can have an idea about how nature works. Some people think their idea is correct because ‘it seems right’ or ‘it makes sense’. But for a scientist (who could be you!), this is not enough. A scientist will test the idea in the real world. An idea that predicts how the world works is called a hypothesis.

Then the question arises whether or not your idea, formulated as a hypothesis, is actually correct or not. If an idea, or hypothesis, correctly predicts how something will behave, we call it a theory. It then becomes a working model so the hypothesis can be tested even further. Other people will use the theory to keep testing it against the observations of nature, of the physical world. For as long as the theory is upheld it remains a plausible explanation. It isn’t a truth, but a possible truth. So in science there are, in principle, no truths, only theories. When a theory has stood the test of time, testing and observing, it is accepted as a possible truth, until it is proven to be wrong.

This means that if one is using science to prove something, one is using a theory, not truth. It is a possibility but others may use different theories on the same subject, and this is, in science, an equally valid way of presenting an explanation of the observed and tested. Hence, science is not proving anything. Its purpose is to disprove a theory. When we are told that something is supported by science it only means that the theory that we are being presented with is a possible explanation, not the explanation. It could well turn out to be something completely different, which means that one can disagree on which theory one supports but ridiculing and excommunicating a not-disproven theory is not part of the scientific methodology.

Is there a procedure followed by science in order to reach their conclusions? Indeed, there is. The scientific method was not invented by any one person, but is the outcome of centuries of debate about how best to find out how the natural world works. So it is a well-established procedure and generally accepted throughout the entire scientific community. This is how it works.

  1. Make an observation. – You (and that can be anybody!) have noticed something happening in the natural world.
  2. Ask a question. - The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where? Rather than starting your search from scratch, you want to be using library and internet research to help you find existing theories and existing test results.
  3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. - A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. It is an attempt to answer your question with an explanation that can be tested.
  4. Test the hypothesis. - Your experiment tests whether your hypothesis is accurate and thus is supported or not by the test results. This is the stage where eventually the majority of hypotheses turn out to be wrong because mistakes and assumptions are a big part of testing methods used. Very often it isn’t until someone else discovers the floors in the setup that well-established experimental tests are being abandoned.
  5. Analyse your test results. - Scientists often find that their predictions were not accurate and their hypothesis was not supported. Then they will have to go back and construct a new hypothesis. Even if they find that their hypothesis was supported, they will not only have to repeat the test, but they also will have to test it again in a new way.
  6. Communicate your results. – Publish the results, failures and all, so others can compare it with their own findings. When testing has confirmed your theory, send your results to others working on the same subject asking them to repeat your experiments and expand the scope of tests that are carried out.

You may correctly deduct from the above information that science is an ongoing method to discover small elements of truth within the natural world. Nothing in science is an absolute certainty. Any theory as a possible explanation for observations can turn out to be wrong, no matter how long or how strongly we believe in it. Any testing method may be exposed as being floored and not suited to test the observed, no matter how long we have been using it. We need to realize that neither the length of time science has used a specific theory, nor the number of people who believe it to be correct are any ‘proof’ of truth. As a matter of fact history has shown us that all long held beliefs have been overturned by thinkers and scientists who were outcast and ridiculed by their peers. Amongst scientists, a generally accepted buzz phrase is that when everybody believes it, it must be wrong.

In contrast to all of this, our modern world has been covered in what has been called ‘popular science’. And what would that be then? It is described as having to do with science, but aimed at ordinary people as opposed to scientists; intended for general consumption. So it isn’t real science; it just smells like it. It has been changed for general consumption. That makes me ask the question, why? Why do people need ‘to consume’ science? Can we please have the same conversion to consumable goods for algorithms, for artificial intelligence, for surveillance methods? Be aware that when science is being manipulated into popular science so you and I can understand science, you are no longer looking at science. Science is only science when it is conducted in the way science ought to be conducted. A cartoon version of it does not show you the reality. It is not real science. It is fake science.

When you take a scientific measurement, you need to mention how you are taking the measurement. What equipment are you using? How are you setting up taking the measurement? How are you collecting the data? How are you interpreting the data? If, for instance, you measure the air temperature, you do need to provide all that information (and more) together with the figure itself. Without the additional information the measurement has no scientific value. Without this additional information no scientific comparison can be made with any other air temperature measurement taken anywhere else or at any other time. When you proclaim that today at lunchtime it was 23°C in Dorset, that figure has no scientific value on its own. You can’t use that figure to compare it with temperatures elsewhere in the country and draw scientific conclusions from it. What is required is information about, amongst other things, the location and conditions of the environment, the equipment used, the setup of the measurement, the collection of the data. The figure one reads is intrinsically linked to the location, the time, the equipment (digital or mercury thermometer?) and so on. The figure is only valid at that spot, at that time, measured in this particular way. Scientifically it can only be compared to other measurements of temperature that correspond with the conditions in which this measurement was taken. So to proclaim that it was 23°C in Dorset is simply wrong. Scientifically you only know the temperature you have measured under specific conditions at a specific place and time. It is not scientific to extrapolate the result to the whole of Dorset, because there will be variations due to all these different facets.

If you want to compare averages scientifically, you need to provide information as to how you have collected the relevant data. What is being included and what is not? How have you made your selection? What referenced sources have you used? For instance, if you are talking about the average age of people in the UK at the time of death, you need to provide additional information that puts the figures you have produced in a scientific light. What regions are included? Does it include the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland? Are these only UK residents, living in the UK at the time of death? Are UK citizens living overseas at the time of death included? Are people who were born outside of the UK but are living in the UK at the time of death included? Are UK residents who die abroad included? What about missing persons, are they pronounced dead and are they being included? And if so, what timeframe are we talking about in relation to their disappearance? What do you take as the starting point of life? A registered birth? The actual date and time of birth? The time of conception? Are still born babies included in the data? What about selective abortions, are these included as these are human beings and they are alive, potentially having a long life ahead of them? Are all deaths included irrespective of the cause of death, be it accidents or as a result of a war? What about suicides, are they included? Where do you collect your data from? As you can see the figure of the average age that is being produced is dependent upon many variable factors.

Whatever average age your research produces it can hardly be compared with figures produced in other countries or by different agencies unless every single detail of the data collection and handling and organizing of the data is exactly the same. There will be countries where there is no accurate record of date of birth. There will be places where the whereabouts of a number of people are unknown. Furthermore, how are you determining the average age of people who lived one hundred years ago? How do you collect your data? How is that scientifically comparable with the data you have collected by delving into the death register in the UK going back ten years? What about the average age of people who lived five thousand years ago? How do you determine their age and does your method match the manner in which you have collected more recent data? In order to have a scientifically significant figure that can be compared to other figures, the way the data has been collected, selected, organized and interpreted must be exactly the same. The slightest deviations mean that any discordance you may detect between the two sets of data could possibly be due to the differences in how you reached your final figure. There is no way of scientifically dismissing this possibility and therefore no scientific conclusions can be drawn from the research.

That, of course, is a big blow to any drive to move fast into the future. Human society, or at least the part that feeds off human society, the profit led part of society, needs to change things as quickly as possible. But when you have to wait for every step to be based on more solid scientific ground you will never move forward fast. You will need to confirm every theory with multiple experiments, carried out by a multitude of different people and organizations in a multitude of different circumstances. The likelihood is that somewhere along the line the theory will fall down, will fail to confirm. Why? Because that is what happens to almost every theory ever brought forward by human beings. The great majority never makes it out of the starting blocks. The rest has to be retracted some time afterwards. In the case of the latter, the industry could possibly gain some profit during that limited timeframe, but the window is narrow and investing money and time into an unknown future is not a good recipe for profit making and huge returns on investments. So they needed to bypass science in order to carry on with their business.

What better way to bypass restrictions, investigation methods, established protocols, than owning the science that is blocking your way? If you can take control of the science you can control the output and present the results you want to. Ah, but will there not be a huge resistance and pushback against such a takeover? Well, you are in luck! Scientists have their noses stuck into their passion and they never look up. They carry on doing what they do. They only talk to each other. They do not present their findings or thoughts to the wider public, as these are only ideas, nothing more. So in the public domain there won’t be any dissident voices coming from the scientific community. What about ordinary people? Well, they have never really come across science as it is far removed from their everyday life. Science is researching and investigating bits of life. All of which takes an awful lot of time and the outcome is totally non-secure. In the meantime, people simply get on with their lives. They don’t need science to do that. Whether or not science confirms a belief or a working method ordinary people have been using for centuries is totally irrelevant to them. Whether or not science understands what is happening and why it is happening is totally irrelevant to what happens in the lives of ordinary people. They do not need science in order to live.

But the industry can use ‘science’ to enhance its own life. As long as they control ‘the science’. As long as the output of the science is relevant to their plans and underpins their investments. On the one hand they have to ensure that they are not getting mixed up in the scientific community and start an uprising there. On the other hand, it would be beneficial to get people to believe in what you are promoting. Here you have the advantage that people believe science is about discovering truth, while in reality it is about discovering untruth. But if you are able to present something as scientific people will automatically assume it is true. Better still, you can present ‘science’ to the people, insinuating that they have become cleverer than ever before as they now ‘understand’ science. You champion the people’s right to information. So not only will people assume that what they are told is truth but they will also treasure it and defend it as they believe that this is what being intelligent means. Based on these considerations they introduced popular science to the public.

Our lives are riddled with it and we don’t even realize. We are shown statistics that tell us exactly how many people in this country died of a particular disease. So many of cardiac failure, so many of kidney insufficiency, so many of bowel cancer or any other cancer you care to mention. Whatever disease you can name, statistics will show you how lethal the disease is. Handy, is it not? Science would ask how you know this. How do you know what a person died of? It turns out that scientifically in only a very small percentage of deceased people is the cause of death a certainty. Not even post-mortem examinations, which constitute not more than 10% of all deaths, can provide definite answers as to the true cause of deaths. In fact, an overwhelming number of death certificates contain nothing more than an opinion about why that person died. Official medical certificates of death are signed by a doctor. In fact, the official document states the following.

Any registered medical practitioner can sign an MCCD. This is even if the deceased was not attended during their last illness and not seen after death, provided that they are able to state the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief.

So a doctor can simply fill in the certificate without any real knowledge. It’s even worse. The death certificate asks for a primary cause of death, but also provides room for a secondary and third cause of death. This allows the doctor to put more information down. For instance, the primary cause of death may be noted as kidney failure as a result of diabetes (secondary cause of death). When you collect data about deaths linked to certain diseases you now have a choice. Do you pick this person as having died of kidney failure, of diabetes, or do you list him twice?

Now it may also be worthwhile letting you know that the medical profession is unable to scientifically prove any cause of any disease. Even worse, there is no scientific way to actually make a correct diagnosis. The doctor may diagnose you as having rheumatoid arthritis with you having very little discomfort of joints and muscles but with a blood test that shows a positive rheumatoid factor test. Or he may diagnose you as having rheumatoid arthritis when you have a lot of muscle and joint discomfort but a negative rheumatoid factor test. This principle is upheld all the way through the diagnostic system. Measles is the diagnosis if there are Koplik spots present, in which case you don’t need very much else to receive that diagnosis. Most measles diagnoses, however, are made without the presentation of Koplik spots. No medical test is capable of delivering a firm diagnosis as scientifically demonstrated. No symptom is unique to any one disease. No set of symptoms is unique to any one disease. So, what is a diagnosis? It is someone’s opinion. We believe what he says, and especially when he gets his colleagues to confirm his opinion, because he has been trained by industry science to deliver such a result. He needs the diagnosis so he can then predict what is going to happen to you. He is not allowed ‘to wait’ so we can see what happens if we don’t do anything. No, he predicts what is going to happen to you and if you don’t want that to happen then you should take his advice and interfere with the natural process. At this point the observation of the natural world ends, which means that science is no longer a possible path one can follow.

The medical world can’t scientifically diagnose a disease. It can’t scientifically identify the cause of the disease. It can’t scientifically identify the cause of death. The simple explanation for all of this is that all influences matter in health and disease, not just the few we are told to take note of. And the real contribution of all these influences to disease and death cannot be determined by any test or any means. But does the medical profession really need to prove anything they proclaim?

Of course, the industry cannot use the methods and experiments that are being conducted within the scientific community as they are not producing the results required in the timeframe required. Hence, the industry has to set up its own research centres and its own ‘scientific community’. They train their own people in the kind of research they require. They set out their own sets of rules. They create their own ‘scientific’ publications. And as people are used to science being conducted out of sight they readily accept that the industry also does its ‘scientific’ work behind closed doors, in all secrecy. Here also we can identify a major difference between science and industry science. In science, there is no secrecy. People freely discuss their ideas and testing methods with other interested parties as the sole objective is to find out more about the natural world. Not who came first matters, but the truth matters. In industrial science everything is secret as they are very much afraid of others stealing their ideas or copying their methods. They need to protect their investment in order to safeguard a decent profit.

We remember that the way a hypothesis becomes a theory is for it to accurately predict certain outcomes within the natural world. Industry science doesn’t bother looking at the natural world for a long time. Instead they collect some selective data, create a computer model and predict the future. So on the surface it appears as if they are following scientific methodology. In science, after a prediction is made, one would have to wait to see whether or not this prediction becomes reality. Observe what happens next. If the prediction matches the reality then the hypothesis becomes a theory. If it doesn’t then the hypothesis must be wrong. However, when their predictions via computer models are so bad, or even terrifying, then the advice of the industry would be not to wait to have the outcome confirmed. We must do something now, before it is too late. It is being presented as if science has proven that a disaster is looming. In order to save lives, to protect the population, policies are implemented based on this ‘scientific evidence’. In fact, they are based on computer models, which are being manufactured with a specific outcome in mind. The models calculate influences in the specific way the designer has linked them together. Then a few types of data are chosen to be put into the model. The selection of influences that they are taking into account and the way they have chosen to let these interact with one another determines what kind of result the model is going to give you. When you then present this result as if it is a fact, a truth, discovered by science, then it is not difficult to persuade the population to follow the new guidelines as we all want to avoid this disaster.

And then the real trick is still to come. Remember that a hypothesis becomes a theory, something near enough to a truth, when the prediction made by the hypothesis is being confirmed by the actual events. Here it is! The computer model predicts a disaster. We take ‘appropriate measures’ to avoid the disaster. The actual reality shows far less of a disaster or no disaster at all. Quod erat demonstrandum. Here is your confirmation! If we hadn’t interfered the disaster would have happened. No folks, this is twisted science. This is the cart before the horse. From the moment you interfere in the natural process you are observing, you can no longer know what the outcome would have been without your interference. Comparing that observed outcome with the prediction of a computer model has no scientific value at any level. It is simply fraud, a lie.

Why do they do it? If no ‘appropriate measures’ are taken and it is allowed to run its natural course then we would be able to see the true result of the process. In this case, it would clearly make the predictions laughable, but that would mean that the people creating the computer model are exposed as frauds, or at least are clearly working for someone else than for the population. Soon, nobody would regard any computer model predicting a specific outcome as science anymore and people would just get on with their lives, ignoring authorities and doom scenarios. Hence, you need to keep hold of the story and control it right through till the final curtain.

So now you are fully set up. You have the laboratories and research centres. You have the education facilities to groom the next generation. You have the outlet facilities to feed the public with the results you want and need. Not only do you control ‘scientific’ publications but you also have already trained people to present advertising as fact. Creating the illusion of scientific information people have come to believe painkiller information, dental information, any kind of health recommendation, cleaning information. Now that you control ‘the intelligence’ and you control ‘collective reasoning’, let’s play ‘science’!

When you state that the average temperature of the earth has been steadily rising over the last thirty years, science wonders how you know that. How did you collect the data? Where have you been measuring these temperatures continuously day and night for the last thirty years? How has the temperature been measured in all these places? And once you have collected the data, how have you selected and organized that data? Are you talking about yearly averages? Are you talking about the average temperature of the equator region or of the northern region of Norway? Are you talking about the temperatures measured in these regions over land or on sea? In cities or in the country? Is this about maximum and minimum daily temperatures in all those spots? Is the average temperature, whichever you are talking about, rising in all places across the entire globe where you have been monitoring the temperature for the last thirty years? In short, and in scientific terms, what is the framework of your research and method of data collection?

The industry doesn’t spend any time on this. We must believe these results as they have been the work of ‘scientists’. Their scientists. Trained, groomed and selected. But it doesn’t stop there!

Allow, for a moment, the figure to stand, then surely the next question is: what is behind this rise? What is the explanation of this ‘observation’? And here comes another surprise. They already know. At the moment they make a new discovery they already have a ready-made explanation. Science would need time, lots of time, to investigate all possible theories on why something is occurring. It has taught us that after many decades of intense research very seldom a satisfying answer can be found. Too many possible influences. Too many influences we haven’t even thought about. But here, the industry knows why the average temperature on earth is rising, if that is at all the case. It instantly knows why the earth is warming up.

The idea of global warming is injected into the daily lives of ordinary people, repeated ad nauseam. All of the sudden people notice it too. Indeed, we can’t remember it ever being so hot when we were children. Not being able to remember is not a scientific argument, you do realize that, don’t you? As the earth is warming up as predicted, the land becomes more dry, plants and animals will die, crops will fail. There is your doom scenario prediction. But as the earth is warming up the icecap on the poles are melting very quickly too, resulting in a rise of the sea level. Global warming, a disaster waiting to happen. However, it is not so easy to maintain the narrative amidst news that early in the winter Madrid is covered in snow for over a week, totally disrupting city life. That is not very warm for Spain, is it? It is difficult to maintain the narrative when at the end of the winter in 2023 the canals in Venice are dry. Or did the sea level rise somewhere else and not in Venice? It is difficult to maintain the narrative when the Maldives are consistently gaining land as a result of the sea retreating. Since 2000, the Maldives have added 37.50 km2 of land area, while 16.57 km2 of new islands have appeared within the South China Seas Spratly and Paracel chains. Panic! Do something.

The narrative gets changed from global warming to climate change, caused by the same thing we told you that is responsible for global warming. Climate change! Anything that we point the finger at and determine it to be out of the ordinary is a direct result of climate change. And we only want to base it on a short-term memory. Only compare things with data from the last few years, and do it selectively. Never mind that all possible extreme weather conditions have happened many times over in the history of the earth, and that without any help of humans at all. Keep pointing the finger to ‘out of the ordinary’. If it rains too much, if it is too dry, if there are heavy storms, if it is cold or hot, if there are earthquakes, landslides, hurricanes, forest fires, animal species dying, crops failing, a decline in the bee population, more cases of asthma or skin cancer, it all is said to be a sign of climate change. And this is the key element in popular science: it is said to be a certain way. Not ‘it is proven’. They do tell people that ‘scientists’ have discovered this or that, but they fail to mention that these scientists are trained for the job in the training facilities of the industry and discover things on computer models. And don’t be fooled by the scale of this deception. Even the Nobel Price is handed to people who come from the industry science. There are very few exceptions. Mostly the winner has ‘discovered’ something that benefits the industry, that creates more options and possibilities to them. Now they are saying all these naturally occurring things are due to climate change and we are responsible for it. All of us. No exceptions. The fact that climate is constantly changing, as science has shown during the history of the earth itself, has become totally irrelevant. What is relevant though is that we are being presented with another computer generated disaster scenario. Watch out, here they come again!

This clash between the industry science and science has been played out more recently, affecting our everyday lives in dramatic fashion. This is when it becomes truly dangerous for every single individual as the goals pursued by these two methodologies are completely opposite. Science is carefully unravelling the natural world in order to understand our environment better. Industry science is pursuing more profit and control over the thinking and behaviour of the population.

During the covid narrative, every government declared they were following scientific advice. Little did they know this was industry science. And when scientists spoke out, contradicting the narrative or even simply asking to follow well-established scientific protocols, they were silenced, ridiculed and deemed to be dangerous to people’s wellbeing. Authorities all over are clearly ruled by the industry science, which has now been allowed to push science even further back into the darkness. The reason science does not seriously resist this is the fact that that is where it has always been: out of sight and unknown. It was never a political or economic force. So when true scientists were manhandled back into the dungeons they quickly retreated and became silent once again. They didn’t know what to do with public exposure anyway. They are not accustomed to explaining to people what they are doing and why everything must remain covered in question marks. They almost voluntarily vacated the premises for the industry science to move into. We are now in danger of living in a society ruled by industry science, presented as ‘the’ science.

We are moving into a society where absolute truths will rule and nothing will be left to chance. This is in stark contrast to the natural world in which everything is possible until it is definitely been proven not to be. Everything is connected to everything else and is therefore a potential influence, which means that direct and single causes as explanations for observations are not the norm. Explanations are multifaceted and nothing should be excluded, no matter how farfetched it looks. Our new society won’t have any of this. It won’t have any room to be different, neither in opinion or in execution of life. Sameness, built on truth, provided by industry science, will be the norm. Uniformity presented as the best option, the healthiest option, the fairest option, the most liberating option, will be the free choice every individual has within this new society. You will be given one choice. But be happy because you do have a choice, and it is the best choice one can make. No more uncertainty. No more questions. No more doubt. Only truth, ‘science’ has provided us with.

I will leave you to ponder on one more thing with regards to scientific work. Science begins when an observation triggers a question. Trying to find answers to that question is science. So whenever you observe something in the natural world and you are searching for an answer you are ‘committing’ science. The driving force behind this process is passion. The only reason for you to put energy and time in the subject is because you want to. Nobody pays you to do this. Any research that is being sponsored raises the question as to the motives of the sponsor. There are only two reasons to put money and resources into scientific research: benefit (money and/or power) and passion. A company, an organisation and an authority don’t have passion. All their sponsorships are for their own benefit. They foresee a certain result and they want that result delivered by the research. If it is not being delivered I fear you can forget any future sponsorship coming your way from that corner. An independent investor (where do we find them these days?) more than likely will be looking for benefit. However, it is still possible that a person invests a lot of money and resources because he is passionate about a particular subject and is willing ‘to lose’ his money over it. For science, this used to be the modus operandi, but since modern society is based on benefit, on generating profit, investors have become choosier about where to put their money. And as they cannot see the difference between industry science and science, it appears to them they are really helping humans to understand the world better.

Science remains the privilege of the few as far as the bigger questions in life go.

Science is not a popularity contest.

Science is not result orientated in its approach.

Science is about helping others to further their quest by sharing all information.

Science allows for all theories to stand shoulder to shoulder.

Science does not prove anything. It endeavours to disprove everything.

Hijacking science and turning it upside down, pretending it is something it isn’t, opens the door to a dangerous world of deceit and manipulation. Turning untruths into truths for the benefit of the few and to the detriment of all others does not form a basis for a society of longevity.

There is nothing wrong with science. There is, however, a lot wrong with what the powers that drive our society have done in its name.

Recognizing the big lie and all that has been built upon it is the beginning of the revolution of consciousness.


June 2023


Patrick Quanten has been a general practitioner since 1983. The combination of medical insight and extensive studies of Complementary Therapies have opened new perspectives on health care, all of which came to fruition when it blended with Yogic and Ayurvedic principles. Patrick gave up his medical licence in November 2001.
Patrick also holds qualifications in Ayurvedic Medicine, Homeopathy, Reiki, Ozon Therapy and Thai Massage. He is an expert on Ear Candling and he is also well-read in the field of other hard sciences. His life's work involves finding similarities between the Ancient Knowledge and modern Western science.

Order your copy