With the circumstances as they are in the world right now, I find myself thinking a lot of the novel ‘ State of Fear’, published in 2004 written by American author Michael Crichton. You’ve probably heard of Crichton as the creator of Jurassic Park and the television series E.R.

His debut, ‘The Andromeda Strain’, made him famous overnight in 1969.  To this day – and I might add to this day more than ever – the story about an unknown virus threatening humanity  is a constant reminder of our vulnerability. Also the story of Jurassic Park, posing as an adventure park for grown ups, holds a warning not to mess with the genealogy of evolution, as does another of Crichton’s novels, titled Next, discussing Bigpharma’s hunt for power and money rather than cures.

What many may have missed is that ‘State of Fear’  brought Michael Crichton to testify before US congress. Why? Because it deals with a mechanism as old as ancient history where those in power used and to this day use fear as a tool to keep people in check. People who are scared tend to feel powerless and look up to their leaders for a solution, which puts these leaders in control. In the Netherlands we recently saw this happening with the ‘noodwet’, the so called emergency law, giving parlement and city councils more authority to act during times of apparent danger, although in this particular case a group of people also stood up against the measurement.

It is dangerous in itself write about these sort of subjects and bring them to the people’s attention. Crichton knew that. On his website, he talks about his reasons for and the dangers of writing State of Fear and even states :

‘I might get killed for this’

Crichton was indeed threatened as a result of  writing State of Fear; by high up politicians, but also by  followers of these politicians  all because, in State of Fear, Crichton brings a professor Hoffman to the stage; who explains of the ‘Fear’ theory and its mechanism to keep people subservient by pointing out circumstances  to be afraid of.

The novel ‘State of Fear’ contains three appendixes, including an 18 page bibliography, that support the research. I would highly recommend one book mentioned titled  ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ written by Bjorn Lomberg, which deals with how statistics shape our view of the world, while in truth, reality may be a whole lot different. Also Lomberg suffered relentless attacks because of writing this book. On this Crichton comments

This can only mean his conclusions are unobjectionable in any serious scientific way.

Food for thought in these questionable times of polarization and the use of propaganda by politicians who want to gain yet even more control.  For those interested in this subject, here are the  links to several articles regarding this subject:

 State of Fear book review explaining the role of Prof. Hoffman

Michael Crichton in his own words State of Fear

Wikipedia on State of Fear.

The Nan Yar – Who Am I card I have chosen to head this blog is the 4 of Tools: Observation,
the number 4 signifying the comfort zone – it being quite easy to follow the opinion of others when confronted with a situation one finds hard to solve oneself (as in people looking to politics to solve the world’s problems rather than picking up their own glove) ;
while the Suit of Tools shows the options earthlings have to use their own spirit rather than simply accept what they read and surrender to the judgment that is implemented by others.
As I said food for thought in these questionable times of polarization and the use of propaganda to gain even more control…

Ingrid Schippers.

September 15 2020

The post State of Fear appeared first on EN Energycounseling.nl.

Recently I read on the internet it is statistically proven I have less chance of contracting diabetes when I sit while I eat; than when I walk while I eat.

Statistic results however always confuse me.
Many components compound to an event or occurrence; I always find it dangerous to take one aspect out of a context to then base data on it.
Would the research have concluded a more general concept, f.i. how I stand less of a chance to get diabetes when I relax more during my day or take my time while I eat I would have found that more plausible than being told I should sit while I eat in order to avoid getting ill.

I can see why being more relaxed in general would decrease my risks. Most, if not almost all modern day diseases, are basically caused by the constant overload of stress factors we are expected to cope with on a daily basis; our fast food and general eating habits only adding to the risk factor.
But to narrow that down to a ‘no walking while you eat conclusion’ seems a dangerous statement to me.

It reminds me of a case study I read about once, about a little town in the south of the United States, where the number of children attracting a certain debilitating disease was considerably higher than in other little towns in that exact same area.
The living conditions of the children in that specific little town where more children became ill;
were exactly the same as the living conditions in all other little towns of that particular district.
Same cultural habits, same sort of foods, same sort of water…

until….someone found out that in that particular town children at more ice cream than children from other little towns in the area.

Focus zoomed in on the ice cream parlor of the town.
All ice cream was tested and researched and even though no fault with the ice cream was found; the owner of the parlor went broke for nobody came in anymore to buy his ice cream. The rumor the ice cream could be the source of the disease was enough. The fact that people had statistically deduced that children who ate more ice cream ran a higher risk of contracting a debilitating disease was enough for people to blame the ice cream.

Until…someone found out that because of the geographical location of that specific little town in the district; – the distance it was removed from the water and the relatively ‘low altitude’ it was located on in comparison to the other  villages, caused the temperatures in that town to be slightly higher than anywhere else.
In fact they were just the right temperature for a bacteria that caused a debilitating children’s disease to flourish significantly more than in the other surrounding villages.
But by then the ice cream parlor had gone bust and children of the specific little village were not allowed ice cream anymore.

What it tells me is that we often don’t know what causes something and can easily be wrong in what we deduce, even causing damage to people or products falsely accused of something.
To me it proves statistics can be 100% wrong. Ever since I’m very careful with what I conclude as a result of statistics.

I wish you an open mindful week.

Ingrid Schippers

This blog is recorded as weekly end-note of Dutchbuzz.nl, the radio program for internationals, every Tuesday on The Hague FM from 10 to 11 pm. All programs are archived at Dutchbuzz.nl.

The post Being careful with conclusions appeared first on EN Energycounseling.nl.