I found this exchange in response to my previous post "Scientist Announce Support for the Ketchum DNA Study" on Dr. Ketchum's FaceBook page. Dr. Swenson and Dr. Ketchum comment on institutional bias and the lack of fact based criticism of the DNA Study:
- David H. Swenson Robin, the statements of scientists is not proof. I merely require that people look at the data, as I have done. To critics: If there are errors, please bring them to Melba's attention, and do not waste our time with unfounded opinion. Thanks for posting this, Robin.
- Melba Ketchum I haven't kept up with numbers, it doesn't matter. There are others supporting the data that can't come forward due to their jobs and how outward support of this project might affect their credibility. One of them is a geneticist that ran a genomics lab. He BLASTed the data and confirmed it. He is catching heck from his superiors though and at this point can't go public. These ate the types of problems we have encountered.
- David H. Swenson I understand. I have left places with no integrity. It works out for the best.I find the following statement form Melba very insteresting:
...There are others supporting the data that can't come forward due to their jobs and how outward support of this project might affect their credibility. One of them is a geneticist that ran a genomics lab. He BLASTed the data and confirmed it. He is catching heck from his superiors though and at this point can't go public. These are the types of problems we have encountered.And Dr. Senson's statement:Science is not based on vote or debate, but on data.It appears that even reading the NABS/Ketchum DNA study is "career killer" for "mainstream" scientist. Why? If the DNA paper "lacks probative data" and is nothing more than "human contamination" why not do a scientifically based critique of the paper pointing out these flaws and then publishing it? I would think the "powers that be" would applaud and support a fact based debunking of the DNA study.Could it be that the empirical data is solid and "mainstream science" does not want to take a serious look at the paper? What are they afraid of ? I thought the ultimate goal of science was "the pursuit of the truth". It appears that those who control "mainstream science" are more worried about politics and protecting their world view. Any empirical data that contradicts this must be suppressed, discredited, or destroyed.Pioneers like Lloyd Pye and Jim Viera have run head long into the "wall of bias". In light of this bias and out right hostility toward any evidence that contradicts the "scientific status quo" I would question any thing "mainstream science" says or does. I now do my own research and draw my own conclusions about a variety of subjects from the origin of man to global warming, uh I mean global cooling and the impending age age, no that was in the 70's, oh yea now its called "climate change".