What I believe about COVID

 

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca)

Member scientist, PANDA (pandata.org)

[ See section about the author’s expertise, at the end ]

Opinion/Belief (not submitted for journal publication)

This is purely my personal beliefs. I do not speak on behalf of OCLA or PANDA.

4 January 2021

Updated on 13 March 2021, with text in bold-italics.

At this time, I hold the following beliefs about COVID.

• In 2020, no respiratory disease virus or viruses (the postulated SARS-CoV-2 included) caused any anomaly (total or incremental) in all-cause mortality.

• All-cause mortality by month, week or day has the clear signature of localized mass deaths caused by medical responses (treatment interventions) and government the measures purportedly intended to reduce transmission (response-induced deaths).

• The said signature of response-induced deaths, in all-cause mortality, includes: 

i. Global synchronicity of sudden onsets immediately following the 11 March 2020 WHO declaration of a pandemic and recommendation to “prepare your hospitals”. 

ii. Unprecedented lateness in the seasonal cycle of the sudden onsets. 

iii. Extreme granularity of the intensities of the sudden onsets, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from zero to very large, down to regional levels.

• Unprecedented tight lockdowns of care homes, following transfers from hospitals of sick and infected patients, caused deadly epidemics in care homes.

• Deadly epidemics in care homes in themselves are not new, and have been amply documented in the pre-2020 scientific literature.

• Many respiratory disease viruses acted concomitantly in 2020, in association with bacterial pneumonias, as is always the case in heightened winter-season transmission and infection.

• Assignment of cause of death as being due to SARS-CoV-2 is worthless. It is pure propaganda enabled by captured institutions.

• No certified uncontaminated samples of the purported pathogen (SARS-CoV-2) were or are available for scientific study and biotech development. The genetic sequence was concocted in the absence of a purified sample of the presumed pathogen, using indirect methods. 

• The RT-PCR test that was devised for COVID-19 has no clinical or epidemiological value whatsoever. It is one of the greatest scandals in public health history.

• The USA is a special case because it has a large population that is particularly vulnerable to great harm from large-scale societal measures. Relevant factors include: obesity, poverty, social class oppression, precarious workforce, substandard universal health care, high social tensions, large income disparity, large homeless and working poor underclasses, aggressive Big Pharma capture, high seasonal vaccination rate, high pharma and illegal drug use, high density of atomized or socially isolated individuals, poor nutrition, low physical activity rates, high rate of psychological depression, high rates of built environment air-conditioning without ventilation, and so on.

• Transmission of viral respiratory diseases is not by contact. It is overwhelmingly by aerosol particles in air. Surface cleaning and hand washing are virtually useless for slowing transmission.

• Masks do not work to reduce transmission, and cause significant harm to school children, and to society.

• The magical “one way mask”, which does not protect the wearer but acts as “source control”, is an invention for propaganda. It is contrary to the physics of breathing aerosol particles suspended in the fluid air. It is a ridiculous fantasy.

• Vaccine trials funded, run, documented, and reported by Big Pharma are at best untrustworthy. They should not be allowed, and they are probably falsified. 

• Vaccines for seasonal viral respiratory diseases are a bad idea. They are dangerous, harmful, and unnecessary. They are driven by profit, not by actual public health.

• By far, the main determinants of disease severity for seasonal viral respiratory diseases are: psychological stress, social isolation, individual health status, obesity, and immunological history (including vaccination challenges). 

My competence to develop beliefs about COVID

Links to my articles about COVID are listed here:

http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2020/07/links-to-denis-rancourt-articles-and.html 

I am retired and a former tenured Full Professor of Physics, University of Ottawa. Full Professor is the highest academic rank. During my 23-year career as a university professor, I developed new courses and taught over 2000 university students, at all levels, and in three different faculties (Science, Engineering, Arts).  I supervised more than 80 junior research terms or degrees at all levels from post-doctoral fellow to graduate students to NSERC undergraduate researchers.  I headed an internationally recognized interdisciplinary research laboratory, and attracted significant research funding for two decades.  

I have been an invited plenary, keynote, or special session speaker at major scientific conferences some 40 times. I have published over 100 research papers in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, in the areas of physics, chemistry, geology, bio-geochemistry, measurement science, soil science, and environmental science. 

My scientific h-index impact factor is 40, and my articles have been cited more than 5,000 times in peer-reviewed scientific journals (profile at Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=1ChsRsQAAAAJ ).

My personal knowledge and ability to evaluate the facts in this article are grounded in my education, research, training and experience, as follows:

i. Regarding environmental nanoparticles.  Viral respiratory diseases are transmitted by the smallest size-fraction of virion-laden aerosol particles, which are reactive environmental nanoparticles. Therefore, the chemical and physical stabilities and transport properties of these aerosol particles are the foundation of the dominant contagion mechanism through air.  My extensive work on reactive environmental nanoparticles is internationally recognized, and includes: precipitation and growth, surface reactivity, agglomeration, surface charging, phase transformation, settling and sedimentation, and reactive dissolution.  In addition, I have taught the relevant fluid dynamics (air is a compressible fluid), and gravitational settling at the university level, and I have done industrial-application research on the technology of filtration (face masks are filters). 

ii. Regarding molecular science, molecular dynamics, and surface complexation.  I am an expert in molecular structures, reactions, and dynamics, including molecular complexation to biotic and abiotic surfaces. These processes are the basis of viral attachment, antigen attachment, molecular replication, attachment to mask fibers, particle charging, loss and growth in aerosol particles, and all such phenomena involved in viral transmission and infection, and in protection measures. I taught quantum mechanics at the advanced university level for many years, which is the fundamental theory of atoms, molecules and substances; and in my published research I developed X-ray diffraction theory and methodology for characterizing small material particles. 

iii. Regarding statistical analysis methods. Statistical analysis of scientific studies, including robust error propagation analysis and robust estimates of bias, sets the limit of what reliably can be inferred from any observational study, including randomized controlled trials in medicine, and including field measurements during epidemics.  I am an expert in error analysis and statistical analysis of complex data, at the research level in many areas of science. Statistical analysis methods are the basis of medical research.

iv. Regarding mathematical modelling.  Much of epidemiology is based on mathematical models of disease transmission and evolution in the population. I have research-level knowledge and experience with predictive and exploratory mathematical models and simulation methods. I have expert knowledge related to parameter uncertainties and parameter dependencies in such models.  I have made extensive simulations of epidemiological dynamics, using standard compartmental models (SIR, MSIR) and new models. 

v. Regarding measurement methods.  In science there are five main categories of measurement methods: (1) spectroscopy (including nuclear, electronic and vibrational spectroscopies), (2) imaging (including optical and electron microscopies, and resonance imaging), (3) diffraction (including X-ray and neutron diffractions, used to elaborate molecular, defect and magnetic structures), (4) transport measurements (including reaction rates, energy transfers, and conductivities), and (5) physical property measurements (including specific density, thermal capacities, stress response, material fatigue…).  I have taught these measurement methods in an interdisciplinary graduate course that I developed and gave to graduate (M.Sc. and Ph.D.) students of physics, biology, chemistry, geology, and engineering for many years. I have made fundamental discoveries and advances in areas of spectroscopy, diffraction, magnetometry, and microscopy, which have been published in leading scientific journals and presented at international conferences.  I know measurement science, the basis of all sciences, at the highest level.

Cancer arises from stress-induced breakdown of tissue homeostasis

Note: The full article, with 80 footnotes, is HERE-PDF.
(and ALTERNATIVE-LINK) 
(and on ResearchGate doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1304.7129)

Is it time to abandon mutation-centric metastasis as the dominant paradigm? Does ‘seed and soil’ do more harm than good?

By Denis G. Rancourt  , PhD

Abstract

Part-I:  I critically review the context of cancer research, where it has been advanced that most published research findings are false, that medicine itself is the third leading cause of death in the Western world, and that experienced stress arising from an individual’s position in society’s dominance hierarchy is the primary determinant of individual health.

Part-II:  I critically review the randomized trials for treatments and screening, especially for breast cancer. It has been advanced that screening does more harm than good, and that treatment protocols have little effect on net population mortality from cancer. There is no robust demonstration that the treatment protocols for the common cancers do more good than harm to individual patients.

Part-III:  I critically review the mutation-centric metastasis dominant paradigm of cancer, and various efforts to somewhat or definitively challenge the dominant paradigm, with an eye to answering the question “What is cancer?”

Final section:  I propose a conceptual model of cancer, which incorporates the leading criticisms of the dominant paradigm, and which is testable. In my model, cancer is an age-dependent and tissue-specific stress-induced breakdown of tissue-shape homeostasis. My model is aided by a graphical picture depicting age-specific and tissue-specific curves of steady-state nodule size (DT) versus experienced stress level (S). A given curve has a critical stress (SC) beyond which there is runaway tumour growth due to tissue-response feedback. Here, “metastasis” is the simple consequence of the individual’s tissue susceptibility to loss of shape homeostasis having gone supercritical for a cluster of tissue-specific DT v. S curves. The model provides treatment strategies on three branches: Psychological, tissue-surface-shape homeostasis, and tumour growth feedback attenuation.

Introduction

This paper was presented in the uOttawa Cinema Academica series at the University of Ottawa on November 21, 2015. A video of the presentation is on YouTube (PART-ONE, PART-TWO).  It will be “peer reviewed” if peers and others review it.

I am not a medical doctor. I am an interdisciplinary scientist with a PhD in physics. I have published over 100 articles in scientific journals, in a broad array of disciplines.

My starting outlook in researching cancer is best represented by these three non-journal-article publications:

•    “A Theory of Chronic Pain: A social and evolutionary theory of human disease and chronic pain” (2011)
•    “Self-Image-Incongruence Theory of Individual Health” (2014), and references therein
•    Chapter: “Human Biology id Such that People Make and Inhabit Dominance Hierarchies”, in my 2013 book

The paper is organized in three main parts, followed by my proposal for a unifying model of cancer.

PART-I: Context of Cancer Research

Approximately 30% of us who are fortunate enough to live in the Western countries will be diagnosed to have died of cancer. Breast cancer is the main life-threatening disease affecting women, when tumours are present on several organs.

Prior to starting this review to find out what establishment science actually knows about cancer, it is important to admit the possibility that medicine is largely a pack of lies, the usual kinds of lies that provide the mental environment substrate that is created and maintained by any professional group that claims high status in society. In that sense, medicine should be viewed as no different than law, or even basic science itself.

Some prominent critics have made this observation from within the medical establishment, in different ways. For example, the “Gold Effect” was described by Professor T. Gold in 1979 and is the phenomenon in which a scientific (often medical) idea is developed to the status of an accepted position within a professional body or association by the social process itself of scientific conferences, committees, and consensus building, despite not being supported by conclusive evidence. 

The Gold Effect was reviewed by Drs. Petr Skrabanek and James McCormick in their book Follies and Fallacies in Medicine,  and it is used to analyze errors in public health policy and practice, such as the widespread use of cholesterol screening in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Most published research findings are false

From a different perspective, renowned medical researcher John P.A. Ioannidis applied Bayesian statistical modelling to prove that it is likely that “most published research findings are false”.  I know something about Bayesian inference theory.  I found Dr. Ioannidis’ argument to be entirely rigorous. Other Bayesian practitioners were critical of the work,  but Ioannidis ably put them in their place.

Ioannidis showed that published medical claims of net benefits of a treatment (such as a regiment of one or more drugs) or of policy implementation (such as cancer screening or vaccination), based on statistical evaluation of large randomized trials, are most often false. In his words:

“Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”

He also points out what is essentially an alternative statement of the Gold Effect:

“… when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance … The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.”

And he clearly describes main sources of researcher bias:

“Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable.”

In his most recent critical overview, Ioannidis is merciless in his assessment of the medical research enterprise, even questioning whether fundamental lab-bench science is of any use in advancing medicine for patient benefit.  In his words:

“… a novel model is needed in funding research to avoid the creation of narrow, isolated specialties that only self-perpetuate … For example, human genetics research has received tremendous funding. This money has not been wasted because other activities and high-tech industry have emerged to support the needs of the genetics community. However, few lives have been saved because of accumulated human genetics knowledge to date, and future prospects (eg, extensions to personalized and precision medicine) also are not promising. Similarly, intellectual fascination in neuroscience for many decades has led to few new practical applications …”

Do medical doctors improve health?

By Denis G. Rancourt

It is a serious question. If any other profession caused a fraction of the death rate due to medical interventions, then that profession would be prohibited from practicing until a full coroner's inquiry was ordered and completed. But not the medical profession. It kills with impunity, without any real oversight.

The numbers are staggering. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM, of the National Academy of Sciences of the US) published a first authoritative institutional report of medical errors, which disclosed that between 44,000 to 98,000 US citizens were being killed each year by medical errors.[1]

These numbers do not count the equally large death rate from "non-error" adverse effects of medicine.

In her brilliant article of 2000, the late Dr. Barbara Starfield reviewed the medical literature, in the light of the IOM report, and reported that the best estimate of total deaths from medicine in the US was between 230,000 and 284,000 deaths per year.[2]

That was in 2000, and the US population has increased by approximately 11% since then. It is reasonable to assume that the death rates from medicine have remained constant since 2000, which is not contradicted by any study or report. In fact, a detailed study published in 2010 showed no measurable improvement since the IOM report of 1999.[3] This means that presently in the US medicine kills between 250,000 and 310,000 US citizens per year, every year.

These deaths are entirely avoidable, since they are caused by the practice of establishment medicine. This means that halting the practice of medicine would save the lives of over one quarter of a million US citizens every year. Approximately 1000 lives would be saved each day that medicine is not practiced in the US. This is equivalent to the death rate from a large skyscraper collapsing every day.

The corresponding death rate is between 80 and 100 deaths per 100,000 per year. This death rate from medicine is the third leading cause of death in the US, after diseases of the heart and cancer. The other leading causes of death (bronchitis, stroke, non-medical accidents, Alzheimer's, diabetes, influenza/pneumonia, kidney failures, suicide, infections, liver failures) all have individual death rates that are far smaller than the death rate from medicine.[4]

As a percentage, the practice of medicine causes approximately 10-12% of all deaths in the US, compared to diseases of the heart (24%) and cancer (23%). Medicine is a major killer. Yet there is virtually no research funding to find a "cure" for the adverse affects of medicine. By comparison, mega research dollars are spent fighting diseases that medicine has proven itself ineffective at fighting.

The reality of the lethal side of medicine is such that medicine should have the onus to prove that it does more good than harm. If medicine were put to the test, proving its worth would be a difficult task: So-called meta-researchers who critically examine the published claims of benefits from medical drugs and procedures find that most medical research is wrong.[5]-[9]

An institutional analysis reveals an air-tight system in which the medical profession preys on the most vulnerable and kills patients at an alarming rate, without being able to demonstrate a net benefit, from the majority of its lucrative interventions, on the most desperate individuals in society (those with terminal illnesses).

Medicine is good at trauma interventions (car accidents, heart attacks) but may do more harm than good against the leading causes of death, and it is itself a leading cause of death.

All this leads me to suggest that the medical profession is unable to regulate itself, or objectively judge itself. It is in urgent need of external regulation and/or boycott or something. It should be stopped in most of its functions until we figure out how to disarm it.

One collapsing skyscraper per day! If Bush were around, he could start a war against medicine. And that would be more sane than any Obamacare. No public health policy makes any sense unless it deals with the third leading cause of death head on.


Endnotes

[Related article::: "Is establishment medicine an injurious scam?"]

[1] Kohn L. et al (eds.). To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068371/html/

[2] Starfield B. Is US Health Really the Best in the World? Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 284, 2000, 483-485.

[3] Landrigan C.P. et al. Temporal Trends in Rates of Patient Harm Resulting from Medical Care. New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 2010, 2124-2134. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1004404

[4] For death rates which do not correctly account for deaths from medicine, see the annual National Vital Statistics Reports, such as the report entitled "Deaths: Final Data for 2010". http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm

[5] Ioannidis, John PA, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, 2005, PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

[6] "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" by David H. Freedman, The Atlantic, 2010.  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

[7] Ioannidis, John PA et al., Replication validity of genetic association studies, Nature genetics, 2001, 29(3), 306-309.

[8] Ioannidis, John PA, Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research, JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005, 294 (2), 218-228.

[9] “On the sociology of medical meta-science: Exposing the Truth supports the Lie” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2011.  http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2011/11/on-sociology-of-medical-meta-science.html

Anti-smoking culture is harmful to health

On the truth problem of public health management

By Denis G. Rancourt


Smoke screen?

We are all going to die from secondhand smoke on outdoor patios?

The medical profession agrees and the government allocates significant resources to negative propaganda and enforcement against smoking.

Ever wonder why these good folks are so concerned about our health? Are there much larger health risks that we never hear about? Are there systemic or societal reasons in the selection of those health risks targeted to be actively vilified by the establishment?

Fatty diets, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, car seat-belts, work safety... What do all these health and safety recommendations have in common? How do these risk factors compare to the real killers? What are the real killers?

In Canada, according to government scientists, 85% of lung cancers are due to smoking and lung cancer is the leading type of cancer deaths (one quarter of all cancer deaths).

This sounds like all smokers are going to die of lung cancer. In fact, IF each and every individual in Canada smoked approximately one pack of cigarettes per day then the resulting death rate from lung cancer would nonetheless only be less than 2 deaths per 1000 inhabitants per year, less than 20% or so of the death rate from all causes, and this would typically only kick-in after 20-30 years of such sustained smoking by the entire population.

Get a grip. Smoking is not going to cause extinction of the species.

This also means that most heavy smokers (two packs a day say) will not die of lung cancer. More than 80-90% or so of heavy smokers will not die of lung cancer.

In addition, lung cancer rates in smokers are highly non-linear with amount smoked, such that a meaningful cancer risk cannot be attributed to light or occasional smokers. So paleeese stop having visions of your early lung cancer death when you trot by an outside smoker holding your breath.

Medical error?

Now why do so many heavy smokers not die of lung cancer? And why do other smokers get lung cancer? And why are 15% or so of lung cancers not due to obvious causal agents? This may be related to the real killer that I am going to tell you about.

But before we talk about the real "natural" killer of people let me remind the reader of the established fact that is virtually absent from establishment propaganda and establishment public health policy development: The third leading cause of death in North America is medical error, after cardiac disease and cancer [1][2].

This is an apropos reminder that establishment scientists are service intellectuals and that establishment medicine may have little to do with public health [3]. It is a reminder of just how much we may have been misled about the real dangers to our own bodies...

Anarchy as the only healthy lifestyle?

As it turns out, there is extensive and conclusive scientific research - that simply does not get talked about in the controlled mental environment and that is virtually not taught in medical schools - showing that dominance hierarchies are the greatest threat to human health in stable and "advanced" societies [4]. [Excluding war and imposed deprivation; which also arise from dominance hierarchies.]

The violence of human dominance hierarchies in our stable "advanced" societies is corroborated by documented empirical facts and experimental results establishing a dominant causal relationship between socioeconomic status and human health and mortality; which is not simply due to differences in resource allocation, access to medical care, life-style differences (smoking, drinking, diet, exercise, etc.), work accidents and other such relatively “incidental” whole-population factors but which instead is due to the direct impacts of dominance hierarchy on physiological functions [4].

In a word, the boss makes you sick - whether you like him/her or not.

Socioeconomic status is the single most dominant predictor of health, and the physiological mechanisms for this causal relation (from socioeconomic status to individual health) are being elucidated by population studies and laboratory experiments.

The vector is psychosocial stress which significantly impacts the immune system, fertility, the brain (see below), the heart (hypertension, pathogenic cholesterol profile), and adrenal gland function [4]. This is particularly relevant when we consider the canonical link between the immune system and cancer (second leading cause of death) and the fact that the first leading cause of death is cardiovascular failure.

The known main stress-causing social circumstances arising from dominance hierarchies are [4]:

“(i) low degrees of social control and predictability ...; (ii) a paucity of outlets after exposure to stressors ...; (iii) a paucity of social support ...; or (iv) high rates of physical stressors ...”

This explains why we seek protections via rules, laws and regulations; why we seek outlets and social support; and why we avoid contacts with the hard end of the dominance hierarchy.

In addition [4], "subjective [socioeconomic status] can be at least as predictive of health as is objective [socioeconomic status]," meaning that one's self-perception as a subordinate individual in the dominance hierarchy can be as important as one's actual status. This in turn implies that culture and propaganda are significant public health factors in dominance hierarchies.

Public health cover up?

If this is the truth about health then the establishment has a truth problem. The establishment is dedicated to maintaining and benefiting from society's dominance hierarchy yet this hierarchy is bad for public health and quality of life.

The obvious solution is cover up. But the evidence is so startling, so evident to even a neophyte observer of society, that the cover up needs to be broad and sustained. It needs to involve every educational institution and professional school [5], every propaganda instrument, and every relevant management ministry.

"Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in 'changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them' [Simone de Beauvoir]; for the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated." [6]

In such a cover up, like any cover up, one needs a proper patsy; or an array of diversions conveniently locked into our hierarchy-induced wants for protection and the reassurances that obedience will provide rewards.

The main diversion, therefore, is to invent or exaggerate health risks that can be reduced by personal lifestyle choices, by discipline and obedience. Of course those with the luxury of such lifestyle obedience are also of higher socioeconomic status, thereby providing a convenient false corroboration of the public health policy.

There be smoking. And trans-fat, and residual carcinogens, and flue shots, and heavy metals in urban drinking water, and cancer screening, and annual check-ups, ... The violently debilitating dominance hierarchy is a given that cannot be examined (we can't even question the concepts of low corporate taxes and mobile capital) and all health problems are either accidental or related to lifestyle "choices" in a "free and democratic" society. Tadaaaa...

And it makes you stupid?

Dominance hierarchy stress on the subordinate individual is directly a killer; and... it makes one stupid [4]:

“Animals who are socially stressed by the dominance hierarchy for prolonged periods undergo neurobiological changes as well. This can involve inhibition of neurogenesis, dendritic atrophy, and impairment of synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus and altered patterns of apoptotic cell death (increases in the cortex and decreases in the hippocampus)”

Fortunately, there is a lifestyle practice that can make you smart [6]:

"But in the last analysis, it is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system [of education]. For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other."

Here Freire's "praxis" means an authentically rebellious praxis of liberation anchored in a fervent dedication to fighting one’s own oppression, against one’s objectification [6][7][8][9].

Endnotes

[1] "Is US Health Really the Best in the World?" by Barbara Starfield. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol.284, No.4, 2000, pages 483-485.]

[2] "Health 'Care' in the United States": Dr. Barbara Starfield interviewed on CHUO 89.1 FM Ottawa (Canada), The Train.

[3] "Some big lies of science" by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[4] “The influence of social hierarchy on primate health (Review)” by Robert M. Sapolsky, Science, vol.308, p.648-652, 2005. (and references therein)

[5]“Disciplined Minds” by Jeff Schmidt, 2000.

[6] “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” by Paulo Freire, 1970.

[7] “Need for and Practice of Student Liberation” (essay) by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[8] “On the racism and pathology of left progressive First-World activism” (essay) by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[9] “Roundabout as conflict-avoidance versus Malcolm X’s psychology of liberation” (essay) by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

Other essays by Denis G. Rancourt

Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He practiced several areas of science (including physics and environmental science) which were funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals and several social commentary essays. He developed popular activism courses and was an outspoken critic of the university administration and a defender of student and Palestinian rights. He was fired for his dissidence in 2009. His dismissal case is scheduled to start court hearings in 2011.