The Control of Information – Academic Capture.
How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown.
Academic Capture.
“…most of what appears in peer-reviewed journals is scientifically weak”. Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for 25 years.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published." Marcia Angell, Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM) for eleven years.
“Britain is steadily sacrificing its centuries-old commitment to freedom of speech simply to protect people from hearing views they do not like.” Civitas Report.
Academic Freedom.
Professor Dennis Hayes, who leads the movement Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF) in the UK states that academics should have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not they are deemed offensive [1] here. Whilst AFAF protects the rights of academics who are censored, Hayes states that one guiding rule in most universities today is to protect people within the academic setting from suffering offense. Those who protect free speech are vilified and attacked. Hayes states this may be over a minor issue, such as a mathematics tutor who stated that he would rather have had a mathematics centre rather than a new religious centre. Typically, the person who is offended does not bring this up at the time but reports the offending statement to those in authority. This ‘wrong think’ can result in suspension, often with restricted access to the university, and the process of investigation can go on for months; it is stressful and very damaging. In the end, this may absolve the target academic, or it may result in disciplinary action, including the loss of employment. Whereas the challenges to opinions were previously actioned within the university, Hayes explained that many of these cases are now resolved in court.
This concern has not only been expressed in the UK, but also in the USA. For example, Learn Liberty, as American free speech organisation, stated that it is the right of everyone “in the academic community to pursue truth and wisdom and reach conclusions according to his or her own lights”. However, in the USA, as in much of the world, speech that is considered offensive by certain parties has been banned, as have speakers who have a view with which some staff and students disagree [2] here.
One of the issues now in academia is that it has become a commercial enterprise. It is not created to serve the common good, by diffusing knowledge. It is also not created to serve democratic ideals, but it is there to make money [3] here. This is achieved by charging students, who have become customers. This alters the relationship between the university and the student body; for example, student demands may or may not be reasonable, but to keep its customers happy, the university has to defer to its customers’ preferences. The second and main source of income is from research grants. Those who pay for research include governments, philanthropists, and large corporations; the same funders as those who fund the censorship industrial complex. They too become academia’s customers. Whilst universities and their staff may claim to be independent, if their research conclusions do not meet with customer expectations, their funders will not return to fund more research projects.
This in turn influences opinions held by university staff; it can change the direction of knowledge. For example, if climatologists who think the sun causes global warming do not attract research grants, they will either become disillusioned and leave academia, or they will be forced out of their positions. They will be replaced by those whose views are in line with funding organisations, i.e., the trillion-dollar decarbonisation industry that permeates banking, land acquisition, and industrial sectors [4] here. Legitimate claims can then be made that most climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activity; those that did not agree have left. This is well explained in a documentary called Climate – The Movie that features thirteen esteemed climate scientists from Ivy League or high ranking universities, including a Nobel Prize winner, who explain that what they consider to be realistic scientific opinions are sidelined [5] here.
Climate science is not the only area that is funded by those with a specific interest, for example, the military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industry, and the censorship industrial complex all fund university programmes and university research. Because universities are businesses, they rely on these sources of funding; inevitably, this narrows academic interests and discourages academic debate.
Several academics who were previously respected and in secure employment have left academia, either because they were dismissed or because they knew their opinions if freely expressed would make their position untenable. This includes the gender critical activist Kathleen Stock previously of Sussex University who resigned her post after student protests, and Piers Robinson, previously Professor/Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism in Sheffield University who was criticised and smeared for investigations into the Syrian war. David Miller, a Professor of Political Sociology at Bristol University, whose views on the Middle East conflict were deemed as controversial by some, was dismissed from his post. David A. Hughes left his position at Lincoln University in order to give himself the freedom to explore challenging ideas relating to global control. Martin Kulldorf, a professor of medicine at Harvard University was dismissed because of his views on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) that were recommended to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Vaccinologist Byram Brindle at the University of Guelph was banished from his workspaces for almost three and a half years following a radio interview in which he expressed concerns about the systemic biodistribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Astro-physicist Wilie Soon left Harvard University; Soon contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation rather than by human activity, a view that was not supported by his academic department. This cancelling or sanctioning of dissent does not only affect the person concerned; it also affects other academics who realise that they need to keep to an approved narrative in order to protect their academic position. For millennia, universities have been places of vibrant debate between those of opposing positions, and often those with a minority view are later vindicated. The notion of debate is now absent, or debate is only allowed through a narrow Overton window.
The only research paper found that investigated the pressure on universities and academics in funding issues was dated 2010, published by Cambridge University Press. This was an international study. It was then found that over half of research funding then came from the universities own funds, with government funders in second place and industry and philanthropy in third place. However, it was acknowledged that the trend was moving away from self-funding, and 75% of academics found that they were under increased pressure to raise external research funding. Research funding from external sources has a clear impact on academic freedom, and the type of research undertaken. Around one third of respondents at that time stated that the existence of external funders exerted influence over their research activities. This influence was thought to be higher when research involved technology transfer, when working in institutions that emphasised commercially orientated research, when working in non-university settings, when working in specific academic fields, and when working in the UK [6] here. Clearly, with an identified trend of moving away from self-funded research in 2010, the influence of governments, private sector and philanthropy would be expected to be much higher in 2025.
An example of this pressure on academics to conform with approved narratives can be seen in the recorded discussion between Dr. Tess Lawrie, and Dr. Andrew Hill of Liverpool University. Hill had previously supported the use of Ivermectin in order to treat Covid-19 patients, but changed his mind after pressure from his funders, whom he allowed to change the conclusions in his academic paper. The reasons for Hill’s change of mind were revealed in this interview with Lawrie [7] here.
Not only do academics lose their position within the academic sphere, facing a more uncertain future with reduced remuneration, but they are also smeared, for example, described in terms including ‘antisemitic’, ‘Assad apologists’, ‘transphobic’, or ‘science deniers.’ [8] here. These academics have not done anything wrong, and often, information available at the time of accusations or appearing later, confirms that their views have credibility and are worthy of debate. Often these dissenting academics are people of high integrity, who put a moral position before their own personal security. For academics with ‘wrong think’, if their views became more widely known, their expertise and ability to express ideas may influence ordinary members of the public to question official narratives.
Interestingly, in 2025 the administration in the USA is also imposing pressure on universities’ curriculum and activities by threats of reduced government funding. Harvard faced escalating sanctions from the White House after becoming the first US university to openly defy the government's demands to limit pro-Palestinian activism and end diversity, equity and inclusion practices. The Trump administration demanded that Harvard make leadership changes, revise admissions policies and audit its faculty and student body to ensure the campus is home to many viewpoints. The demands have also targeted several other high-profile universities. Funds have also been cut to Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell University [9] here.
Medical dissenters.
As in academia, doctors and other health professionals are under pressure to comply with directives from authorities. One of the earliest known who challenged the narrative was the British doctor. Andrew Wakefield. Dr Wakefield was the lead scientific investigator of an investigation into the links between vaccines, autism, and intestinal disease [10] here. This was published in the Lancet; the paper’s conclusion stated:
“We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue. If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. A genetic predisposition to autistic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordance rate in monozygotic than in dizygotic twins.
We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine” [11] here.
However, despite its weak conclusion and the only recommendation being that more research was needed, this paper received considerable publicity, and it caused mothers to decline the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine for their children. The Lancet was put under pressure to retract the paper, which it did. Later, Wakefield was struck off the register by the General Medical Council (GMC). For various reasons, including insurance cover and other ongoing legal challenges, Wakefield could not defend his case. The senior clinical investigator in this study, Professor John Walker-Smith was equally culpable and faced similar charges to those of Wakefield. Walker-Smith was able to defend himself in court and won his appeal against GMC accusations; it is extremely likely that Wakefield would have been similarly exonerated had he been in a position to defend himself [12] here. After Wakefield was struck off, the media orchestrated a smear campaign against him, that resulted in wide public condemnation, often by people who had not followed his case, nor even read the retracted paper [13] here.
Any doctor who spoke against the Covid narrative received similar treatment, across continents. For example, immunologist Dr. Thomas Binder was forced into a mental institution in Switzerland [14] here. Three eminent immunologists stated that recommended NPI were not appropriate to prevent Covid infection, but they were not allowed on the mainstream media to explain their case; two of the three subsequently lost their academic posts [15] here. Dr Meryl Nass in the USA had her medical licence suspended for prescribing an off-label medication, despite causing no patient harm [16] here. For the same reason, Dr. Mary St Rose is fighting to stop her medical licence being taken away in St. Lucia [17] here. Other senior doctors in the USA have been under threat and their careers have been disrupted for treating Covid-19 patients: pulmonary and critical care specialists Dr Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Malik [18] here, and cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough [19] here, amongst many others. In the UK dissenting doctors have been threatened with losing their licence to practice medicine, including Dr. Sam White [20] here and Dr. David Cartland [21] here. In Canada, Dr. Mark Trozzi has had his licence removed [22] here, and attempts have also been made to remove the licence of Dr. Charles Hoffe, whose crime was to report that his patients suffered side effects from the Covid-19 injection [23] here.
This has a sobering effect on doctors who have commitments and rely on their salary. For example, when Doc Malik interviewed author CJ Hopkins, Malik described a previous interviewee, a doctor who dissented from the mainstream narrative. However, Malik stated that he had to end the interview because the dissenting doctor stated that he did not want to say anything that put his career at risk, although he had widely discussed his concerns before the interview began [24] here. (at 31 minutes into the interview).
Academic and medical journals.
Academic journals and medical journals are heavily subsidised through reprints, or copies of an academic paper by a company or business interest. When a commercial interest finds a paper that supports its activities, it orders copies for its clients in order to promote their products. For example, a study in the BMJ found that most reprints in medical journals were paid for by the pharmaceutical companies [25] here. The study found that after gifts and drug samples, reprints are the most common form of promotional material circulated among doctors.
The question then arises concerning the validity of these circulating papers. Marcia Angell, an eminent doctor who was editor of one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals for twenty years stated:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” [26] here.
Angell’s view is not an isolated one. The concerns she raised were also voiced by Richard Smith, the long-standing editor of another prestigious journal, the BMJ. The peer review system is thought by many to be the gold standard, but Smith stated that the peer review system as flawed, and he wrote:
“…That is why Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked `publish' and `reject'. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom.” [27] here.
Smith described the peer review as slow, expensive, inconsistent, biased, and abused [28] here. Authors who submit papers that do not meet with political narratives routinely have their work rejected, or their papers retracted. For example, Professor Norman Fenton, mathematician and computer scientist who had many academic papers published in the past, reported that academic papers that do not comply with approved narratives do not get accepted even on preprint sites [29] here. It is also claimed by some that there is bias in the acceptance of scientific papers in other areas, such as nutrition and climate science [30] here. Political science is also subject to restricted research; for example, there has been no government funded research into the events surrounding 9/11, even though considerable scientific evidence has been revealed by independent researchers that challenges the prevailing narrative [31] here.
It has also been demonstrated in earlier The Control of Information posts that British and European universities are deeply involved in the censorship-industrial-complex [32] here and here. The involvement of American universities is well documented by American journalist Matt Taibbi in the Twitter Files research documents [33] here. Funding is provided for research, fact check and media literacy training, and designing fact checking tools and systems, which mainly appears to be from government sources.
Conclusion.
Academics and universities are seen by a large proportion of the public as experts on scientific topics, and doctors are considered experts on health. However, there is evidence that academics, doctors and universities are caught up in a business model; its customers now include students who pay for their education, and governments, commerce and philanthropists who pay to shape research to suit their own needs. A new development in the shaping of academia’s policies is the threat of funding withdrawal. The medical profession is the medium between the pharmaceutical business and the patient/consumer, and hence it has a significant role in the marketing of pharmaceutical products. The independence of academia and the medical profession can no longer be taken for granted.
Both academics and the medical profession are put under considerable pressure to comply with demands made upon them by governments, corporations and philanthropists. Some observers such as the editors of scientific journals have expressed concern at the poor quality of research that is published, the bias in acceptance of papers, and the unprofessional manner in which academic papers are reviewed. Unfortunately, a compliant mainstream media and the well-funded and industrious censorship industry are coordinating activities to keep the public uninformed of the true realities of dubious academic output and the capture of the medical profession.
Organisations that defend academic freedom are themselves put under pressure, as free speech is no longer seem as a common good by many students and university staff. However, despite the challenging academic environment, the leaders of such organisations are doing their best to support those who have been accused and smeared.