I’m also not an expert on the impact of government funding on the outcome of scientific achievement. But it doesn’t take an expert to see that the presence of government funding for, let’s say, the anthropomorphic view of global warming, has skewed the market for such science. It’s true that many scientists entered the field with their biases already established by the media and their university professors. But I would be shocked if there were not a fair number of scientists who are pursuing the AGM theory because to do otherwise would endanger their livelihood.

I think if scientific achievement is our primary objective, we ought to level the playing field and stop subsidizing one area of inquiry over another, or worse yet, one theory over another. This is where politics has corrupted the scientific community, because politicians can (and do) funnel grant money to their favorite scientific constituencies through pork barrel programs tacked onto legislation. This distorts the free market of ideas and means there are less resources available to the areas of research the free market would otherwise direct them to.

In fact, I’m not convinced the government should be in the science business, choosing winners and losers in science, any more than government should be choosing winners and losers in business. It is just too dangerous and costly to let decisions like this fall into the hands of politicians who love to control the purse strings of power.

Are there exceptions? Maybe. The space program, some may argue, was the result of government funded science. Or was it? Actually, I would say that the government funding of space-related scientific achievements came as the result of the national priority given to putting humans into space, and was not the cause of it.

An article in the Vancouver Sun, Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say, is a great example of how government funding of one narrow theory of science has distorted the outcome of scientific research to produce fraudulent results. In order to produce the desired results in the research, scientists (do we have to keep calling them that?) have been cherry-picking the temperature data for years. Out of hundreds of temperature data sources that could have made up the data set for northerly latitudes, the biased AGM crowd has been using one. That’s right, just one.

It’s time to face the fact that few, if any, scientific advances in the history of mankind have been the result of politicians funneling money to a particular grant program, particularly when the grant programs favor only one particular theory. If we can send a message to Washington to start killing some heretofore sacred cows in the so-called scientific community, I think we’ll end up with a lot more momentous achievements in science.

Are there too many scientists to support such a paradigm shift in how we do science? Yes and no. My bet is that a lot of dead wood needs to be trimmed from the payrolls of science, but that there is a huge market waiting to be made for dedicated scientists that have their ear to the ground for useful science that will actually change lives and produce measurable achievements in the history of humankind.

The scientists who are used to sucking up to political benefactors for funding will probably not make it–nor should they. If their research is actually useful, someone will step forward to pay for it. But when government offers to pay for it (read “you and me”), we just end up with inefficiently allocated funding for the research that really does need to take place.

I am proud that my teen daughter has taken an interest in sponsoring a child through your organization and want to commend you on the transparency that seems to be the norm for Compassion. I am a board member of the God and Country Festival in Nampa, Idaho, and have been glad to help our organization partner with yours to promote compassion in Jesus’ name.

However, since Compassion is a steward of millions of dollars of resources being spent in the name of Jesus on behalf of the church, I feel it’s important to share with you something that your board may not be aware of.

I see many references to HIV/AIDS on your site, and I understand that there is a lot of good that needs to be done in service to those in third world nations who have been labeled as suffering from HIV/AIDS. I firmly believe that needs to continue, just with more accurate language and a more informed delivery of services, nutrition, and medicine.

However, since truth is a pretty important (and rare) commodity in our society, I think it’s critical that the church speak accurately about the HIV/AIDS science, and not promote what has turned out to be one of the biggest scientific frauds of the 20th and 21st centuries, second only to the Global Warming fraud that has recently been uncovered.

In short, many reputable members of the scientific and medical communities have found zero evidence of a causal connection between HIV and what is so commonly referred to as AIDS. Any fair reading of the various points of view will lead to the conclusion that HIV does not and cannot cause African AIDS or any other form of AIDS, because the reasoning behind the diagnosis of AIDS as a disease process is entirely illogical. This is not the appropriate place for a full discussion of the science, but I would be happy to discuss this with someone, and I encourage the board to research it independently.

There will come a point when the fraud can no longer be sustained by the popular media, just as the fraud of so-called global warming is no longer sustainable. I cringe when I see reputable organizations such as yours lending their good name and credibility to a scientific establishment that has purged dissenters from its ranks in the same way the global warming alarmist have purged dissenters from their ranks.

Lest you think what I’m saying is the result of wild conspiracy theory, I refer you to a couple of important books by published scientists on the subject which outline some of the reasons that have led to the false “HIV causes AIDS” theory to become “accepted science” due to politics and money rather than objective laboratory work:

• Inventing the AIDS Virus – Peter H. Duesberg
• Rethinking AIDS – Robert Root-Bernstein
• The Origin, Persistence, and Failing of HIV/AIDS Theory – Henry H. Bauer

Please contact me if you have questions, or Google a peer-reviewed scientist named “Peter Duesberg” to learn more about this. I hope to see Compassion on the right side of this issue after the board has a chance to review the literature, and before the pseudo-scientific facade of the HIV/AIDS theory comes down publicly and damages its reputation.

May God bless your ministry,

Kevin Harper
(208) 249-8893