Thank you for the encouragement.

Otto

My question is: How can a fact that lies before the eyes of the quality media world-wide be brought to their attention so that they see it?

You know which fact I mean? The lack of a single visible adversary to my request to have a second look. That is all I request and ever requested for three and a half years. It costs nothing!

And can save everyone.

Shouldn’t it be fun to show that the person who requests that is a fool? The fool says: “Please, show me someone who says: ‘this lonely piece of luggage is mine, I take the responsibility for it.’ ”

Why does no one see that no one says that this request is foolish?

A good example on a not very intellectual level is the experience of the FBI agent who saw very early that Osama Bin Laden was a serious threat to the US, tried to get his superiors to be aware of this, got ejected for being too extreme, took a job as security chief for the World Trade Center, and died weeks later in the 9/11 demolition of the Twin Towers.

But you are right, the implications of this case are unprecedented since we may lose all.

This is without precedent in history to my knowledge.

Such generals tend to poo poo any critics and the press tends to accept their advice. There is virtually no investigative journalists or science critics in science, though they exist in health and medicine. Ruling scientists and bureaucrats can simply hide behind their expertise and their prizes and let their maverick critics languish in zero or negative coverage.

Or to ask: “Is there a single citizen on the planet who finds it forgivable that CERN continues before the sought-for person has been found?”

What can be done to improve the situation? It seems doubtful that publishers will want to pay their overworked employees to bone up on their physics including actually reading the safety reports of CERN and seeing that they are either exploded or feeble.

The whole idea of the investigative reporter in science is totally unfashionable ever since the Chicago Tribune’s John Crewdson failed to win a deserved Pulitzer or Peabody or both for informing the world of just how much of a charming rogue was Robert Gallo the non-discoverer of HIV, to virtually no effect even when he put it all into a book.

The only people who fund investigative work in reporting on science or at any rate medicine and the environment are Pro Publica, a non profit foundation, and one or two others, and the Times in New York, of course, who unfortunately have in place a whole set of science reporters who have never challenged what they are spoon fed for their entire careers.

Only scienceguardian.com stands alone in its desire to cover scandalous lack of public responsibility on the part of scientists whose expertise otherwise leaves them scot free of any troublesome coverage by nosy reporters.

Thus CERN doesnt have to worry about anyone from the media asking any difficult questions. Anyone except Science Guardian that is. But the founder and editor of that distinguished publication has its hands full dealing with other matters of concern and thus is unable to give this topic the attention it deserves, given that the Fate of the World is in the balance.