ADDENDUM 3 (SEPT 1ST 20201): FOUND A GEM! PROF. DAVID RASNICK LITERALLY AND INDEPENDENTALY SAID SAME THING: “THIS VIRUS EXISTS ONLY ON COMPUTERS”. AND GOES ON CONFIRMING ALL MY THESIS AND MORE
ADDENDUM 4 (FEB 2022): LOUD AND CLEAR
UPDATE JULY 10, 2021
And yet another loud and clear confirmation that no one notices because…
“A bipartisan pair of lawmakers want information from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) about the deletion of data on the genetic sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that could provide answers as to the virus’s origin.
In a letter sent Friday and shared first with The Hill, Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) and Mark Green (R-Tenn.) ask for answers about the missing genetic sequences, and press NIH Director Francis Collins to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect scientific data.
The letter comes after a scientist last month said he found some of the genetic sequences of the virus that had previously been uploaded to an NIH server in March 2020 were subsequently deleted at the request of the Chinese researchers from Wuhan who initially uploaded them.
Jesse Bloom, a principal researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, wrote in a preprint paper that he recovered 13 missing sequences that purportedly show the virus was circulating in the Chinese city of Wuhan before a December outbreak of COVID-19 that was linked to a “wet market” selling live animals.
The NIH said the requestor wanted the data removed from the agency’s Sequence Read Archive and indicated it was being submitted to another database. Submitting investigators hold the rights to their data and can request withdrawal of the data, the agency said.
Top U.S. public health officials and experts are increasingly lending credibility to the need for a deeper investigation into the origins of the coronavirus.
Scientists haven’t discovered definitive proof the virus leaked from a lab. But they also have not found hard evidence that shows the virus started in animals before naturally infecting humans, which is why some now argue an investigation is needed.” – The (S)Hill
ALL THEY EVER TALK ABOUT IS DATA, A STREAM OF CHARACHTERS. I mean it’s hard to feel sorry for the human race when it’s this dumb, eugenicists are not totally wrong, just not in position to decide who dies, because no one is.
“Would a sane person mix a patient sample (containing various sources of genetic material and never proven to contain any particular virus) with transfected monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs, then claim that the resulting concoction is “SARS-COV-2 isolate” and ship it off internationally for use in critical research (including vaccine and test development)?
Because that’s the sort of fraudulent monkey business that’s being passed off as “virus isolation” by research teams around the world.
If you are new to the topic of “virus isolation/purification”, I strongly recommend that you begin by reading the Statement On Virus Isolation by Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Thomas Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell, MA: https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/ or watch this5 minute videofrom Dr. Cowan.
UPDATE2: I discovered this when the video was already up…
“Most of our readers are interested in consumer DNA testing for genealogy and ancestry research. Illumina played a massive role in making these services affordable. All the big DNA testing companies use Illumina’s chip technology. But some companies are even more closely intertwined with Illumina. I mention briefly in an article on who owns 23andMe that the chip company was an investor in the 2015 funding found of its customer.”
“If you’ve ever used 23andMe, Ancestry.com, or any other genetics-testing service, chances are that your genes were sequenced on machines made by the $25 billion biotech behemoth. Now the undisputed leader in the emerging field of DNA sequencing in the U.S., Illumina has outstripped its rivals by selling its sequencing hardware to medical researchers around the world.”
As we’ve shown in previous reports, 23andMe is owned by Richard Branson and a former wife and current partner of Google’s founder Sergey Brin. She also happens to be the sister of YouTube CEO.
“23andMe is owned by a sizeable number of large investors spearheaded by Anne Wojcicki (YouTube CEO sister and former Google owner wife – S.m) and Richard Branson. The list of investors with recent ownership stakes in the company includes Altimeter Capital, Fidelity, Casdin Capital, and Foresite Capital. Since the company was founded in 2006, it has been involved in multiple funding rounds. There were at least 60 investors in 2020 before the merger, including GlaxoSmithKline and Sequoia Capital. Early investors include Alphabet (Google’s parent company) and WuXi Healthcare Ventures (a Chinese company). When 23andMe merged with Richard Branson’s acquisition company, the existing stakeholders retained ownership of 81% of the merged company.”
In 2010, Cornell University and Life Technologies filed a lawsuit against Illumina, alleging that its microarray products infringed on eight patents held by the university and exclusively licensed to the start-up. The case was settled in April 2017 without any finding of fault. In September 2017 both parties asked to have the settlement reviewed, with Cornell accusing both Illumina and Life Technologies of misrepresentation and fraud.
In February 2020, Illumina filed a patent infringement suit against BGI relating to its “CoolMPS” sequencing products. In return BGI has filed patent infringement lawsuits for violation of federal antitrust and California unfair competition laws, claiming use of “fraudulent behavior” to obtain or enforce sequencing patents that it has asserted against BGI, preventing the firm from entering the US market.“
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
In fact, the headline is borrowed from Scientific Americanand I’m just following up with more knowledge from all sorts of “authoritative sources”, none of the claims are mine. The knowledge and vision that put them together are, not much else. The rest is “science”
THERE SEEMS TO BE A FORCE OF ATTRACTION BETWEEN HUNCH-BACKED science elites AND PEDOPHILES
Science Philanthropist, Jeffrey Epstein, Convenes a Conference of Nobel Laureates to Define Gravity.
Twenty one of the world’s top physicists, including three Nobel Laureates, opened a symposium on St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands to debate the essence of gravity and a unified gravity theory. The private meetings were called, “Confronting Gravity: A workshop to explore fundamental questions in physics and cosmology.” The goal of the conference was to establish what the current consensus is, if any, for defining gravity.
The conference was financed by science philanthropist, Jeffrey Epstein and his foundation, J. Epstein Virgin Islands Inc. It was organized by physicist and cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss, Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Department, and Inaugural Director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University. The Nobel laureates included, particle physicists, Gerardus’t Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek. Other scientists in attendance were theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking, Jim Peebles from Princeton University, Alan Guth from MIT, Kip Thorne from Caltech, Lisa Randall from Harvard University, Barry Barish from LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory, a bevy of observational cosmologists and Maria Spiropulu from CERN near Geneva, Switzerland.
Understanding gravity is critical right now Krauss argues because “many of the key ideas at the forefront of particle physics cosmology relate to our lack of understanding of how to accommodate gravity and quantum mechanics.” Indeed, conventional notions of gravity require little to no spatial energy for entities to be bound to the other, a sense of anti-gravity or vacuum. But on the quantum level, subatomic particles are bound by the exchange of increasingly intense energy parcels: electrons by the exchange of photons, neutrons and protons (made up of quarks) by the exchange of gluons, and the decay of quarks and leptons by the exchange of vector W and Z bosons.
To make it even harder, there is a lack of experimental evidence in the murky field of quantum gravity, and classical physics has really only observed the effects of gravity over larger ranges of 50 orders of magnitude of mass, i.e., for masses of objects from about 10−23 to 1030 kg.
The outcome of the conference however was quite astounding, Krauss asserts. There was a general consensus that gravity might exist in the form of gravitational waves and that these waves could be a part of “what we’ve been calling, empty space.”
The notion of gravitational waves is not new. They were predicted by Einstein to exist from the curvature of space time, and although they’ve never been directly detected, there is indirect evidence from the study of binary stars, neutron stars and black holes. What bothers Krauss though is that there’s still a lack of basic physics to explain them. “…We have these ideas and these parameters and every experiment is consistent with this picture, and yet nothing points to the fundamental physics beneath it.”
At the conference though, Krauss and others focused on finding such an explanation. Empty space, they suggested, is perhaps neither full, nor empty but is rather in a state of flux between intense energy spurts and their cancellation. “We know empty space isn’t empty, because it’s full of these virtual particles that pop in and out of existence,” Krauss points out, “If you try and calculate the energy level in a hydrogen atom, and you don’t include those virtual particles, you get a wrong answer. Every now and then you have an electron positron pair that pops into existence,” he continues. “And [while] the electron wants to hang around near the proton because it’s oppositely charged, the positron is pushed to the outskirts of the atom, and while there, they change the atom’s charged distribution in a very small, but calculable, way. Feynman and others calculated that effect, which allows us to get agreement between theory and observation at the level of nine decimal places. It’s the best prediction in all of science. There’s no other place in science where, from fundamental principles, you can calculate a number and compare it to an experiment at nine decimal places like that.”
But if empty space is full of intense virtual particles, not to mention other particles, it’s equally full of the cancellation of energy. Symmetry in nature occurs all the time, Krauss notes and can produce exact cancellations, for example the peak of a wave coinciding with the trough of another. Absolute cancellation is mathematically challenging though, Krauss points out. “You can’t take two [energy] numbers that are very large and expect them to exactly cancel leaving something that’s 120 orders of magnitude smaller left over. And that’s what would be required to have an energy that was comparable with the observational upper limits on the energy of empty space.”
To deal with this difficulty, Krauss simply derives that the energy of empty space could never be exactly zero. And to distinguish it from pure empty space, one would have to measure it over time as it fluctuates. “The only observation that would give you positive information is if you could measure it changing over time. Then you’d know it wasn’t vacuum energy.”
This view of not quite empty space, made up of intense energies that almost cancel each other out, might very well help to explain the physics of gravitational waves beyond the consequences of curved space time: not just in their architecture but their capacity to occur in both the high energy quantum realm as well as the apparent voids of gravitational space.
“Right now we’re floundering,” Krauss admits. “We’re floundering, in a lot of different areas.” But from a gravity point of view, that approach might well lead to a unified theory.
March 17, 2006 – The Ritz-Carlton hummed like the inside of an atom Thursday night as 20 of the world’s top physicists – including three Nobel Prize winners – opened an informal symposium to debate the makeup and origins of the universe. The private meetings, dubbed “Confronting Gravity: A workshop to explore fundamental questions in physics and cosmology,” bring some of physics’ top minds to St. Thomas to discuss some of the science’s most puzzling questions, such as the existence of black holes and alternate dimensions. Nobel prize winners Gerardus’t Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek, and experimental and theoretical physics pioneer Stephen Hawking, attended an informal reception at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Thursday night. Wilczek, who with Gross and H. David Politzer won the 2004 Nobel Prize in physics for exploring of the force that binds particles inside the atomic nucleus, said it was rare to have so many top minds at a relatively small physics conference. “This is a remarkable group,” he said. Gross said it was important for physicists at the top level to get together, not only to discuss new theories, but to keep each other sane. “It’s a little scary to be out there probing the unknown and you need to have people around to say, ‘No, you’re not crazy,'” Gross said. “This is special.” The driving force behind the conference, New York and Virgin Islands money manager Jeffrey Epstein, said he pooled the group on St. Thomas with hopes that the relaxed setting would free the physicists’ minds to explore one of the 20th century’s last unanswered physics questions: What is gravity. “They say Newton discovered it but no one knows what it is,” said Epstein, whose J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation helped finance the six-day conference. Delegates from the University of the Virgin Islands and Antilles School also attended the reception, where a few free spirited physicists braved the dance floor.
“There is no agenda except fun and physics, and that’s fun with a capital ‘F,'” Epstein said.
Jeffrey E. Epstein serves as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Trust Company. Mr. Epstein started his career at Bear Stearns with an educational background in physics. He has been a Trustee of Institute Of International Education Inc. since October 2001.
He serves as a Director of Financial Trust Company. Previously, Mr. Epstein was a Member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations as well as the New York Academy of Science. He is also a former Rockefeller University Board Member. Currently, Mr. Epstein is actively involved in the Santa Fe Institute, the Theoretical Biology Initiative at the Institute for Advanced Study, the Quantum Gravity Program at the University of Pennsylvania, and also sits on the Mind, Brain & Behavior Advisory Committee at Harvard.
Jeffrey Epstein’s philanthropic affiliations include both the Wexner Foundation and The COUQ Foundation. He is a member of the Edge Group, an internationally respected group of thinkers and achievers.
Jeffrey Epstein also has an extremely short attention span. Why?—it’s not that he’s bored. He has enough information after fifteen minutes so that you can see his mind thrashing about, as if in a labyrinth.
In 2006, Lawrence Krauss wanted to have “a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology”. They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of the science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event.
For Krauss, what came out of the conference was the over-riding issue that “there appears to be energy of empty space that isn’t zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won’t be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.”
“It’s not clear to me”, he says, “that the landscape idea will be anything but impotent. Ultimately it might lead to interesting suggestions about things, but real progress will occur when we actually have new ideas. If string theory is the right direction, and I’m willing to argue that it might be, even if there’s just no evidence that it is right now, then a new idea that tells us a fundamental principle for how to turn that formalism to a theory will give us a direction that will turn into something fruitful. Right now we’re floundering. We’re floundering, in a lot of different areas.”
LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS, a physicist/cosmologist, is the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics and chairman of the Physics Department of Case Western Reserve University. He is the author of The Fifth Essence, Quintessence, Fear of Physics, The Physics of Star Trek, Beyond Star Trek, Atom, and Hiding in the Mirror.
THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN’T ZERO A Talk with Lawrence Krauss
I invited a group of cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists and cosmologists. Stephen Hawking came; we had three Nobel laureates, Gerard ‘tHooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek; well-known cosmologists and physicists such as Jim Peebles at Princeton, Alan Guth at MIT, Kip Thorne at Caltech, Lisa Randall at Harvard; experimentalists, such as Barry Barish of LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory; we had observational cosmologists, people looking at the cosmic microwave background; we had Maria Spiropulu from CERN, who’s working on the Large Hadron Collider — which a decade ago people wouldn’t have thought it was a probe of gravity, but now due to recent work in the possibility of extra dimensions it might be.
I just returned from the Virgin Islands, from a delightful event — a conference in St. Thomas sponsored by Jeffrey Epstein — that I organized with 21 physicists. I like small events, and I got to hand-pick the people. The topic of the meeting was “Confronting Gravity. ” I wanted to have a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology. And if you think about it they all revolve in one way or another around gravity. Someone at the meeting said, well, you know, don’t we understand gravity? Things fall. But really, many of the key ideas that right now are at the forefront of particle physics cosmology, relate to our lack of understanding of how to accommodate gravity and quantum mechanics. I invited a group of cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists and cosmologists. Stephen Hawking came; we had three Nobel laureates, Gerard ‘tHooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek; well-known cosmologists and physicists such as Jim Peebles at Princeton, Alan Guth at MIT, Kip Thorne at Caltech, Lisa Randall at Harvard; experimentalists, such as Barry Barish of LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory; we had observational cosmologists, people looking at the cosmic microwave background; we had Maria Spiropulu from CERN, who’s working on the Large Hadron Collider — which a decade ago people wouldn’t have thought it was a probe of gravity, but now due to recent work in the possibility of extra dimensions it might be.
I wanted to have a series of sessions where we would, each of us, try and speak somewhat provocatively about what each person was thinking about, what the key issues are, and then have a lot of open time for discussion. And so the meeting was devoted with a lot of open time for discussion, a lot of individual time for discussion, as well as some fun things like going down in a submarine, which we did. It was a delightful event, where we defied gravity by having buoyancy, I guess.
I came away from this meeting realizing that the search for gravitational waves may be the next frontier. For a long time I pooh-poohed it in my mind, because it was clear it’s going to be a long time before we could ever detect them if they’re there, and it wasn’t clear to me what we’d learn — except that they exist. But one of the key worries I have as a cosmologist right now is that we have these ideas and these parameters and every experiment is consistent with this picture, and yet nothing points to the fundamental physics beneath it.
It’s been very frustrating for particle physicists, and some people might say it’s led to sensory deprivation, which has resulted in hallucination otherwise known as string theory. And that could be true. But in cosmology what we’re having now is this cockamamie universe. We’ve discovered a tremendous amount. We’ve discovered the universe is flat, which most of us theorists thought we knew in advance, because it’s the only beautiful universe. But why is it flat? It’s full of not just dark matter, but this crazy stuff called dark energy, that no one understands. This was an amazing discovery in 1998 or so.
What’s happened since then is every single experiment agrees with this picture without adding insight into where it comes from. Similarly all the data is consistent with ideas from inflation and everything is consistent with the simplest predictions of that, but not in a way that you can necessarily falsify it. Everything is consistent with this dark energy that looks like a cosmological constant; which tells us nothing.
It’s a little subtle, but I’ll try and explain it.
We’ve got this weird antigravity in the universe, which is making the expansion of the universe accelerate. Now: if you plug in the equations of general relativity, the only thing that can ‘anti-gravitate’ is the energy of nothing. Now: this has been a problem in physics since I’ve been a graduate student. It was such a severe problem we never talked about it. When you apply quantum mechanics and special relativity, empty space inevitably has energy. The problem is, way too much energy. It has 120 orders of magnitude more energy than is contained in everything we see!
Now that is the worst prediction in all of physics. You might say, if that’s such a bad prediction, then how do we know empty space can have energy? The answer is, we know empty space isn’t empty, because it’s full of these virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, and we know that because if you try and calculate the energy level in a hydrogen atom, and you don’t include those virtual particles, you get a wrong answer. One of the greatest developments in physics in the 20th century was to realize that when you incorporate special relativity in quantum mechanics you have virtual particles that can pop in and out of existence, and they change the nature of a hydrogen atom, because a hydrogen atom isn’t just a proton and electron.
That’s the wrong picture, because every now and then you have an electron positron pair that pops into existence. And the electron is going to want to hang around near the proton because it’s oppositely charged, the positron is going to be pushed out to the outskirts of the atom, and while they’re there they change the charged distribution in the atom in a very small, but calculable, way. Feynman and others calculated that effect, which allows us to get agreement between theory and observation at the level of nine decimal places. It’s the best prediction in all of science. There’s no other place in science where, from fundamental principles, you can calculate a number and compare it to an experiment at nine decimal places like that.
But then when we ask, if they’re there, how much should they contribute to the energy in the universe, we come up with the worst prediction in physics. it says if empty space has so much energy we shouldn’t be here. And physicists like me, theoretical physicists, knew they had the answer. They didn’t know how to get there. It reminds me or the Sidney Harris cartoon where you’ve got this big equation, and the answer, and the middle step says “And then a miracle occurs”. And then one scientist says to another, “I think you have to be a little more specific at this step right here”.
The answer had to be zero. The energy of empty space had to be precisely zero. Why? Because you’ve got these virtual particles that are apparently contributing huge amounts of energy, you can imagine in physics, how underlying symmetries in nature can produce exact cancellations — that happens all the time. Symmetries produce two numbers that are exactly equal and opposite because somewhere there’s an underlying mathematical symmetry of equations. So that you can understand how symmetries could somehow cause an exact cancellation of the energy of empty space.
There appears to be energy of empty space that isn’t zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won’t be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.
But what you couldn’t understand was how to cancel a number to a hundred and twenty decimal places and leave something finite left over. You can’t take two numbers that are very large and expect them to almost exactly cancel leaving something that’s 120 orders of magnitude smaller left over. And that’s what would be required to have an energy that was comparable with the observational upper limits on the energy of empty space.
We knew the answer. There was a symmetry and the number had to be exactly zero. Well, what have we discovered? There appears to be this energy of empty space that isn’t zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won’t be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem. When we look out at the universe, if this dark energy is something that isn’t quite an energy of empty space but its just something that’s pretending to be that, we might measure that it’s changing over time.
Then we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that’s pretending to be energy of empty space. And many people have hoped they’d see that is because then you wouldn’t need quantum gravity, which is a theory we don’t yet have, to understand this apparent dark energy. Indeed, one of the biggest failures of string theory’s many failures, I think, is it never successfully addressed this cosmological constant problem. You’d think if you had a theory of quantum gravity, it would explain precisely what the energy of empty space should be. And we don’t have any other theory that addresses that problem either! But if this thing really isn’t vacuum energy, then it’s something else, then you might be able to find out what it is, and learn and do physics without having to understand quantum gravity.
The problem is, when we actually look out, every measure we’ve made right now is completely consistent with a constant energy in the universe over cosmological time. And that’s consistent with the cosmological constant, with vacuum energy. So if you make the measurement that it’s consistent with that, you learn nothing. Because it doesn’t tell you that it is vacuum energy, because there could be other things that could mimic it. The only observation that would tell you, give you positive information is if you could measure it was changing over time. Then you’d know it wasn’t vacuum energy.
All if we keep measuring this quantity better and better and better, it is quite possible that we will find out it looks more and more like a vacuum energy, and we’re going to learn nothing. And the only way to resolve this problem will be to have a theory. And theories are a lot harder to come by than experiments. Good ideas are few and far between. And what we’re really going to need is a good idea, and it may require an understanding of quantum gravity, or it may require that you throw up your hands, which is what we’re learning that a lot of people are willing to do. In the Virgin Islands we had a session on the anthropic principle, and what is surprising is how many physicists have really said, you know, maybe the answer is an anthropic one. Twenty years ago if you’d asked physicists if they would hope that one day we’ll have a theory that tells us why the universe is the way it is, you would have heard a resounding ‘Yes’. They would all say ‘that’s why I got into physics’.
They might paraphrase Einstein, who said, while referring to God but not really meaning God, that the question that really interested him is did God have any choice in the creation of the universe. What he really meant by that was, is there only one consistent set of laws that works. If you changed one — if you twiddled one aspect of physical reality — would it all fall apart? Or are there lots of possible viable physical realities?
Twenty years ago most physicists would have said, on the basis of 450 years of science, that they believed that there’s only one allowed law of nature that works, that ultimately we might discover fundamental symmetries and mathematical principles that cause the nature to be the way it is, because it’s always worked that way.
So that is the way science has worked. But now because of this energy of empty space — which is so inexplicable that if it really is an energy of empty space, the value of that number is so ridiculous that it’s driven people to think that maybe, maybe it’s an accident of our environment, that physics is an environmental science — that certain fundamental constants in nature may just be accidents, and there may be many different universes, in which the laws of physics are different, and the reasons those constants have the values they have might be — in our universe — might be because we’re there to observe them.
This is not intelligent design; it’s the opposite of intelligent design. It’s a kind of cosmic natural selection. The qualities we have exist because we can survive in this environment. That’s natural selection, right? If we couldn’t survive we wouldn’t be around. Well, it’s the same with the universe. We live in a universe — in this universe — we’ve evolved in this universe, because this universe is conducive to life. There may be other universes that aren’t conducive to life, and lo and behold there isn’t life in them. That’s the kind of cosmic natural selection.
We’re allowed to presume anything; the key question is, is it a scientific question to presume there are other universes? That’s something we were looking at in the meeting as well. I wrote a piece where I argued that is a disservice to evolutionary theory to call string theory a theory, for example. Because it’s clearly not a theory in the same sense that evolutionary theory is, or that quantum electrodynamics is, because those are robust theories that make rigorous predictions that can be falsified. And string theory is just a formalism now that one day might be a theory. And when I’m lecturing, talking about science, people say to me, evolution is just a theory, I say, in science theory means a different thing, and they say, what do you mean? Look at string theory, how can you falsify that? It’s no worse than intelligent design.
I do think there are huge differences between string theory and intelligent design. People who are doing string theory are earnest scientists who are trying to come up with ideas that are viable. People who are doing intelligent design aren’t doing any of that. But the question is, is it falsifiable? And do we do a disservice to real theories by calling hypotheses or formalisms theories? Is a multiverse — in one form or another — science?
In my sarcastic moments I’ve argued that the reason that some string theorists have latched onto the landscape idea so much is that since string theory doesn’t make any predictions, it’s good to have a universe where you can’t make any predictions. But less sarcastically, if you try and do science with idea, you can try and do real science and calculate probabilities. But whatever you do, you find that all you get is suggestive arguments. Because if you don’t have an underlying theory, you never know.
I say, well, what’s the probability of our universe having a vacuum energy if it is allowed to vary over different universes? Then I come up with some result which is interesting, and Steven Weinberg was one of the first people to point out, that if the value of the energy of empty space was much greater than it is, then galaxies wouldn’t have formed, and astronomers wouldn’t have formed, so that gave the anthropic argument that, well, maybe that’s why it is what it is — it can’t be much more.
But the problem is, you don’t know if that’s the only quantity that’s varying! Maybe there are other quantities that are varying. Whatever you’re doing is always a kind of ad hoc suggestive thing at best. You can debate it, but it doesn’t lead very far. It’s not clear to me that the landscape idea will be anything but impotent. Ultimately it might lead to interesting suggestions about things, but real progress will occur when we actually have new ideas. If string theory is the right direction, and I’m willing to argue that it might be, even if there’s just no evidence that it is right now, then a new idea that tells us a fundamental principle for how to turn that formalism to a theory will give us a direction that will turn into something fruitful. Right now we’re floundering. We’re floundering, in a lot of different areas.
As a theorist, when I go to meetings I often get much more out of the experimental talks. Because I often know what’s going on in theory, or at least I like to think I do. I was profoundly affected by the experimental talks. In principle, we are now able to be sensitive to gravitational waves that might change a meter stick that’s three kilometers long by a length equal to less than the size of atom!. It’s just amazing that we have the technology to do that. While that is not actually detecting any gravitational waves, there’s no technological obstructions, to going to the advanced stage. Gravitational waves may be indeed allow us a probe that might take us beyond our current state of having observations that don’t lead anywhere. I was very impressed with these findings.
At the same time, that we had a talk from Eric Adelberger at the University of Washington, who’s been trying to measure Newton’s Law on small scales. You might think, who would want to measure Newton’s Law on small scales? But one of the suggestions for extra dimensions is that on small scales and gravity has a different behavior. There has been some tantalizing evidence that went through the rumor mills that had suggested that in these experiments in Seattle they were seeing evidence for deviations from Newton’s Theory. And Attleburger talked about some beautiful experiments. As a theorist, I’m just always amazed they can even do these experiments. And gave some new results, there are some tentative new results, which of course are not a surprise to me, that suggest that there is as yet no evidence for a deviation from Newton’s Theory.
Many of the papers in particle physics over the last five to seven years have been involved with the idea of extra dimensions of one sort or another. And while it’s a fascinating idea, but I have to say, it’s looking to me like it’s not yet leading anywhere. The experimental evidence against it is combining with what I see as a theoretical diffusion — a breaking off into lots of parts. That’s happened with string theory. I can see it happening with extra-dimensional arguments. We’re seeing that the developments from this idea which has captured the imaginations of many physicists, hasn’t been compelling.
Right now it’s clear that what we really need is some good new ideas. Fundamental physics is really at kind of a crossroads. The observations have just told us that the universe is crazy, but hasn’t told us what direction the universe is crazy in. The theories have been incredibly complex and elaborate, but haven’t yet made any compelling inroads. That can either be viewed as depressing or exciting. For young physicists it’s exciting in the sense that it means that the field is ripe for something new.
The great hope for particle physics, which may be a great hope for quantum gravity, is the next large particle accelerator. We’ve gone 30 years without a fundamentally new accelerator that can probe a totally new regime of the sub-atomic world. We would have had it if our legislators had not been so myopic. It’s amazing to think that if they hadn’t killed the superconducting Super Collider it would have been already been running for ten years.
The Large Hadron Collider is going to come on-line next year. And one of two things could happen: It could either reveal a fascinating new window on the universe and a whole new set of phenomena that will validate or refute the current prevailing ideas in theoretical particle physics, supersymmetry etc, or it might see absolutely nothing. I’m not sure which I’m rooting for. But it is at least a hope, finally, that we may get an empirical handle that will at least constrain the wild speculation that theorists like me might make.
Such a handle comes out of the impact of the recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) studies on Inflation Theory. I read in the New York Timesthat Alan Guth was smiling, and Alan Guth was sitting next to me at the conference when I handed him the article. He was smiling, but he always smiles, so I didn’t know what to make much of it, but I think that the results that came out of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) studies were twofold.
Indeed, as the Times suggested, they validate the notions of inflation. But I think that’s just journalists searching for a story. Because if you look at what quantitatively has come out of the new results they’re exactly consistent with the old results. Which also validate inflation. They reduce the error bars a little bit, by a factor of two. I don’t know if that is astounding. But what is intriguing to me is that while everything is consistent with the simplest models, there’s one area where there’s a puzzle. On the largest scales, when we look out at the universe, there doesn’t seem to be enough structure — not as much as inflation would predict. Now the question is, is that a statistical fluke?
That is, we live in one universe, so we’re a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we’re lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number’s smaller than you’d predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I’m certainly hoping it’s the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it’s wrong there’s still work left for the rest of us.
CFR-Trilateral pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s corporate philanthropy tied to transhumanist neo-eugenics
But before these sex scandals were the highlight of Epstein’s celebrity, he was better known not just for his financial prowess, but also for his extensive funding of biotechnological and evolutionary science. With his bankster riches, he founded the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation which established Harvard University’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics.
Epstein, a former CFR and Trilateral Commission Member, also sat on the board of Harvard’s Mind, Brain, and Behavior Committee. He has furthermore been “actively involved in . . . the Theoretical Biology Initiative at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, the Quantum Gravity Program at the University of Pennsylvania,” and the Santa Fe Institute, which “is a transdisciplinary research community that expands the boundaries of scientific understanding . . . to discover, comprehend, and communicate the common fundamental principles in complex physical, computational, biological, and social systems.”
Transhumanists believe that technologically “upgrading” humankind into a singularity will bring about a utopia in which “poor health, the ravages of old age and even death itself will all be things of the past.” In fact, eminent transhumanist Ray Kurzweil, chief of engineering at Google, believes that he will become “godlike” as a result of the singularity.
If history has shown us that these are the sordid bioethics that result from corporate-funded biosocial science, shouldn’t we be weary of the transhumanism projects of neo-robber barons like Epstein, Gates, Zuckerberg, Thiel, and the Google gang?
So, considering that transhumanism—the outgrowth of eugenics—is being steered not only by twenty-first-century robber barons, but by corporatist monopoly men who are connected to the very transhumanist Rockefeller Foundation which funded Nazi eugenics, I suspect that transhumanist technology will not “upgrade” the common person. Rather, it will only be disseminated to the public in such a way—as Stanford University Professor Paul Saffo predicts—that converts social class hierarchies into bio(techno)logical hierarchies by artificially evolving the One Percent into a species separate from the “unfit” working poor, which will be downgraded as a slave class.
In his 1932 eugenic-engineering dystopia, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley (Julian’s brother) depicts how biotechnology, drugs, and psychological conditioning would in the future be used to establish a Scientific Caste System ruled by a global scientific dictatorship. But Huxley was not warning us with his novel. As historian Joanne Woiakdemonstrates in her journal article entitled “Designing a Brave New World: Eugenics, Politics, and Fiction,” Aldous’ “brave new world can . . . be understood as a serious design for social reform” (105). In a 1932 essay, titled “Science and Civilization,” Huxley promoted his eugenic caste system: “in a scientific civilization society must be organized on a caste basis. The rulers and their advisory experts will be a kind of Brahmins controlling, in virtue of a special and mysterious knowledge, vast hordes of the intellectual equivalents of Sudras and Untouchables” (153-154).
With the aforementioned digital robber barons driving the burgeoning age of transhumanist neo-eugenics, I fear that Huxley’s Scientific Caste System may become a reality. And with Epstein behind the wheel, the new GMO Sudras will likely consist of not only unskilled labor slaves, but also child sex slaves who—like the preadolescents in Brave New World—will be brainwashed with “Elementary Sex” Education, which will inculcate them with a smash monogamy sexuality that will serve the elite “World Controllers.”
FUNNY HOW JEFFREY EPSTEIN SPONSORED TED’S ‘BILLIONAIRES’ DINNER’ AND NOW HIS PRESENCE HAS BEEN SCRUBBED
The arrest of New York financier Jeffrey E. Epstein has resulted in many people trying to distance themselves from the registered sex offender, including scrubbing records of him attending high-profile events.
Epstein, 66, was arrested earlier this month at Teterboro Airport on charges that between 2002 and 2005, Epstein “exploited and abused” dozens of underage girls, some as young as 14.
In the early 2000s and as recently as 2011, Epstein, whose billionaire status is now under question, would hobnob with a who’s who of academia, literature and Silicon Valley at literary agent John Brockman’s gathering dubbed the “Billionaires’ Dinner,” an annual event held during the TED conference in Monterey, California.
In a now deleted post on Brockman’s nonprofit The Edge Group’s website, the “Billionaires Dinner” is described as one of Epstein’s “favorite events.” It added that Epstein “enjoys hanging with stimulating and provocative thoughtful minds, who have achieved a high degree of success in finance, company, high tech, and scientific research.”
The occasion is “a night where the large names in finance, business, philanthropy, and science gather together. For one night, the richest people in the world come face to face with the most intelligent individuals in history.”
The New York Times reported in 2002 that Epstein “flew a bunch of Tedsters to Monterey in his Boeing 727, outfitted with mink and sable throws and a high-altitude lunch catered by Le Cirque 2000.”
Photographed onboard the plane were Brockman, Steven Pinker, Daniel C. Dennett, Katinka Matson, Richard Dawkins.
The original caption, shown above from a Yahoo Finance screengrab, has been altered to exclude the association with Epstein.
Pinker, a Harvard professor of psychology and author was onboard that flight. He told Yahoo Finance that he has found himself at some of the same events as Epstein, but has no personal or professional relationship with him and has only spoken to him three times that he can recall.
“I first met Epstein a couple of years before that plane trip, when I was invited to chat with him over coffee with a few mutual friends who said he was really smart, intellectual, and scientifically curious,” Pinker told Yahoo Finance. “My own impressions were different.”
Pinker went on to describe Epstein as a “kibitzer.”
“[He] liked to hang out with [and] shoot the breeze with smart and famous people, but he was intellectually lazy and immature: abruptly changing the subject, dismissing people’s observations with wisecracks, considering his own intuition to be as valid as data from experts,” Pinker added.
Another passenger on that trip, the philosopher and author Daniel C. Dennett, described the flight as “uneventful” and that Epstein “pretty much stayed to himself.”
Two photos completely removed
While the Epstein mention in the plane photo caption was altered, two photos from the event are no longer featured on the Edge’s website.
At the 2002 dinner were guests like Dean Kamen, Linda Stone, Richard Saul Wurman, Steve Petranek, Jeff Bezos, John Markoff, Kara Swisher, Nathan Myhrvold, Christopher J. Anderson, George Dyson, W. Daniel Hillis, Stewart Brand, Katinka Matson, Peter Schwartz, Ryan Phelan, Richard Dawkins, Louis Rossetto, Daniel C. Dennett, David Bunnell, Steven Levy, Charles Simonyi, Sergey Brin, and Marney Morris, according to the page.
At least one guest, in particular, stood out as not having major business or literary accomplishments. That person is Sarah Kellen who appears in two now-deleted photographs.
Kellen, who is now married to Nascar driver Brian Vickers, has been accused of recruiting young girls, maintaining Epstein’s schedule and handling travel arrangements for the young girls being exploited. She’s specifically identified in the controversially lenient non-prosecution agreement as a “potential co-conspirator.”
For nearly 15 years, Epstein’s foundations have been major financial supporters of Brockman’s non-profit the Edge Foundation, Inc., contributing more than half a million dollars in that timeframe, according to Yahoo Finance’s calculations. In 990 filings, Epstein’s The C.O.U.Q. Foundation donated $25,000 in 2001, $50,000 in 2003, $55,000 in 2004, and $200,000 in 2005, to the Edge Foundation, Inc.
The investigation into Epstein began in 2005 by the Palm Beach Police Department. As the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida began preparing federal criminal charges, Epstein’s attorneys began plea bargain discussions. On September 24, 2007, Epstein signed the controversial non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. attorney’s office. In that agreement, he plead guilty to one count of the solicitation of prostitution and agreed that he would register as a sex offender. He also agreed to a 30 month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of community control. In exchange, the U.S. attorney’s office agreed to not pursue federal charges.
Epstein was released in 2009 from the Palm Beach county stockade after only 13 months spent in the private wing with six days of work release per week.
Attendees at the 1999 dinner included Richard Saul Wurman, Nathan Myhrvold, Linda Stone, Steve Case, Marney Morris, John McCrea, Joichi Ito, Katinka Matson, Jeffrey Epstein, Doug Rowan, Leon M. Lederman, Kevin Kelly, Jean Case, Pattie Maes, David Bunnell, Jeff Bezos, W. Daniel Hillis, Kai Krause, according to a cached version of the page. Another cached page for the 2000 event shows that guests included Marney Morris, Pattie Maes, Charles Simonyi, Kara Swisher, George Dyson, Linda Stone, David Braunschvig, Katinka Matson, W. Daniel Hillis, Dean Kamen, Stewart Brand, Kip Parent, Nathan Myhrvold, Jeffrey Epstein, Brewster Kahle.
Brockman, the founder of the Edge Foundation, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Mogul Donor Gives Harvard More Than Money
Reclusive investor Epstein forges intellectual and financial connections with University
Jeffrey E. Epstein’s recent $30 million gift to Harvard was one in a series of donations that the elusive magnate has given anonymously to the University over the past decade.
The story behind Epstein’s deep connection with Harvard parallels his giving history, with close friendships with professors and administrators spanning the past 10 years. As an individual with no formal connection to the University, save for his donations, his Harvard ties highlight the meeting between the world of minds in the academy and the world of wallets in the business arena.
Yet Epstein appears interested in more than the large collection of planes, trains and automobiles which his fortune has allowed him to amass—and he has found Harvard the perfect staging ground for his intellectual pursuits.
Networking with the University’s greatest and most well-known minds, he has spurred research through both discussion and dollars he has contributed to various faculty—most often in the sciences.
Indeed, those new to his beneficence praise his wealth of knowledge and numerous relationships within the scientific community.
“I am amazed by the connections he has in the scientific world,” says Martin A. Nowak, who will leave Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study to run the mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program at Harvard endowed by Epstein’s $30 million gift. “He knows an amazing number of scientists; he knows everyone you can imagine.”
Indeed, Epstein shares a special connection with one of the most prominent figures at Harvard—University President Lawrence H. Summers.
Summers and Epstein serve together on the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, two elite international relations organizations.
Their friendship began a number of years ago—before Summers became Harvard’s president and even before he was the Secretary of the Treasury—and those close to Epstein say he holds the University president in very high regard.
“He likes Larry Summers a lot,” Epstein’s friend and Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz says. “He speaks well of Larry, and I think he admires Larry’s economic thinking.”
And Summers is not the only person at Harvard whom Epstein admires—or who admires Epstein.
Epstein counts a number of professors—including Dershowitz, Lindsley Professor of Psychology Stephen M. Kosslyn and former Dean of the Faculty Henry A. Rosovsky—among his bevy of eminent friends that includes princes, presidents and Nobel-Prize winners.
The relationships Epstein has formed inside and outside the scientific community are particularly impressive, given that he is self-taught and does not even hold a bachelor’s degree.
Kosslyn was introduced to Epstein by the famed late Harvard professor and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, and Dershowitz says he met Epstein through “mutual friends.”
Rosovsky, Epstein’s oldest friend in the bunch, met the mogul through similarly serendipitous circumstances. Twelve years ago, “we were introduced by a mutual friend, Mr. Leslie Wexner,” Rosovsky writes in an e-mail.
Wexner, the billionaire who founded Limited Brands—whose empire now includes Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works and Express—is also a longtime Harvard benefactor.
Epstein and Wexner, longtime friends and business associates, teamed up in the early 1990s to fund the construction of Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel’s new building, Rosovsky Hall.
Epstein, along with Wexner and his wife, is listed on a plaque in the building as the donor of the Rosovsky Naming Gift.
But despite running in the academy and business circles’ proverbial fast-track, Epstein himself is reserved when it comes to stepping into line of the public sight.
In fact, many of Epstein’s friends within the Harvard community say it comes as a surprise to them that Epstein, a long-time, low-profile donor, attached his name to his latest donation at all.
University officials seem to appreciate Epstein’s proclivity to privacy, and did not return repeated phone calls requesting information about his donation.
Epstein himself also declined to comment for this article. His staff say he has never granted an official interview to a member of the press.
“He was very anxious to make this donation anonymously,” Dershowitz says. “He didn’t want any building or anything named after him,” he says, adding that “the school put some pressure on him to do it.”
A source familiar with the donation confirms that Summers told Epstein a public donation would be in the best interest of the program because other donors would come forward on the basis of his support.
Epstein “did not want to damage the program by not making the donation publicly,” the source says.
But behind the scenes, Epstein is a well known figure, garnering the praise and respect of prominent academics.
A Meeting of the Minds
Dershowitz, Kosslyn and Rosovsky each herald Epstein’s keen intelligence, sharp wit and his uncommon interest in the sciences.
“Jeffrey is totally irreverent,” Dershowitz says. “To him, it doesn’t matter if it’s a prince, a pope, or the president; if Jeffrey has a good joke or a good idea, he’ll share it.”
“He is provocative, but it’s in fun,” Kosslyn writes in an e-mail.
When the joking concludes, though, it is clear that Epstein has the chops to survive—and flourish—among this formidable group of intellects.
Dershowitz, who has written 20 books, says Epstein is “brilliant,” and is the only person outside of Dershowitz’s immediate family to whom he sends pre-publication manuscripts.
Kosslyn calls Epstein “one of the brightest people I’ve ever known.”
“He’s an absolute delight to talk and argue with,” Kosslyn says. “Unlike some very bright people, Jeffrey actually wants to get at the right answer to a question, not just win a debate.”
And, Dershowitz says, discussing—and debating—concepts in mathematics, genetics, law, and psychology is a popular pastime for the trio.
“When Jeffrey, Steve and I are together, nobody finishes a sentence,” Dershowitz says. “We cut each other off all the time because we just get it.”
Dershowitz says that Epstein’s friendships with numerous high-profile intellectuals are a natural outgrowth of the financier’s great wealth.
“Jeffrey has so much money that you can’t give him anything,” Dershowitz says. “The only gift you can give him is interesting people, and someone gave me to him as a gift.”
So, while Epstein “received” both Dershowitz and Kosslyn nearly a decade ago and the two have been working at the same university for years, they came together—at Epstein’s behest—only recently.
“He’s very proud of the fact that he introduced us,” Dershowitz says. “He loves bringing people together. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.”
In this case, Dershowitz says, it did.
Dershowitz and Kosslyn currently jointly teach Psychology 2310, “The Neuroscience of Law: Can a Legal System be Grounded in Knowledge about the Brain?”
While Kosslyn and Rosovsky say Epstein has supported their research, others outside Epstein’s inner-circle have also benefited from his largesse.
In recent years, Epstein has funded the work of Professor of the History of Science Anne Harrington.
From 1999 to 2001, Harrington and her colleagues examined claims made by traditional Chinese medicine, with a particular focus on qi, the Chinese term for “breath of life” or “vital essence.”
In particular, Harrington says she and her colleagues focused on the phenomena to which the Chinese apply the term. Qi or qi dong commonly refer to the practices which improve individuals’ health and well-being and increase their sense of inner-peace.
Harrington’s research took her to Beijing, China—where she worked alongside traditional Chinese medical practitioners and other Western scientists—and Chicago, Ill., where the actual experiments were conducted.
In addition, Harrington says Epstein also funded a working group, which examined the placebo effect and the state of the field.
She says Epstein is known for his interest in unconventional and “cutting-edge developments in the sciences.”
“He is known for his willingness to support research that is ‘outside the box,’” Harrington writes in an e-mail. “He likes to see if he can anticipate where the emerging cutting-edge of science might be,” she writes.
Epstein likes to “invest up front in it, and, in that sense, I think his scientific interests are literally unconventional,” she adds.
Harrington says she and Epstein met through Harvard’s Mind/Brain/Behavior (MBB) program, which Harrington co-directs and Epstein advises in his capacity as a member of the committee on MBB.
Although Harrington says Epstein is not as active on the committee as he once was, he remains an important contributor to Harvard’s scientific community.
“Jeffrey’s knack for identifying future emerging, but perhaps under-appreciated or under-funded areas and ‘adopting’ interesting people within the Harvard community could have a long-term positive impact on this institution’s capacity to stay intellectually nimble and on the edge,” she says.
The Nowak Factor
In a move that is likely to do just that, Epstein donated $30 million to create a mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program at Harvard last January.
A newly recruited professor, Nowak will play an integral part in that program.
Nowak, who is currently the head of the Program in Theoretical Biology at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, will arrive at Harvard this summer to assume a rare joint appointment in the mathematics and organismic and evolutionary dynamics departments.
He says he uses mathematics to model human behavior, the evolution of language and the changes that occur in cancer cells.
Nowak says he met with then-Mathematics Department Chair and current Dean of Undergraduate Education Benedict H. Gross ’71 last spring, who told Nowak that Harvard’s natural sciences would benefit from his presence at the University. Nowak was granted a tenured position at Harvard in August 2002, which he accepted.
Epstein’s donation soon followed.
Friends at Harvard say they know little about the logistics of Epstein’s multi-million dollar donation, but Rosovsky says discussions about the gift began last spring—around the same time as Nowak’s meeting with Gross—with a final decision coming in late January.
Nowak says Epstein has been sponsoring his research—to the tune of $500,000—since the two met about three years ago.
Since colleagues say Epstein is particularly interested in an interdisciplinary approach to science, he and Nowak seem to be a natural fit.
The source familiar with the donation also says that Harvard was the only institution to which Epstein would consider making a donation of this type.
“There isn’t a university that comes close to Harvard in so many different areas,” the source says. For Epstein, “there was not a choice between Harvard and another place; there isn’t another place that exists.”
Like Harrington, Nowak says Epstein’s munificence comes with no strings attached.
A University source confirms this, saying the donation “is a general gift with no provisions of any kind in the terms.”
Nowak says Epstein’s hands-off approach makes him an attractive scientific sponsor.
“He is one of the most pleasant philanthropists to deal with,” Nowak says. “Unlike many people who support science, he supports science without any conditions. There are not any disadvantages to associating with him.”
Although Nowak describes Epstein as a “friend,” the contact between the two is such that Nowak is unaware of exactly how it is that the financier is in a position to be so generous.
“He has a company. What exactly he does I don’t know,” he says.
The Making of a Mogul
When he is not globetrotting in search of investment opportunities, colleagues say Epstein spends his days managing the fortunes of his billionaire clients from his private island, Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, but his life was not always so charmed.
50-year old Epstein was born into a working-class Brooklyn family, and attended the city’s Lafayette High School. In his early ’20s, he taught mathematics and physics to high school students at The Dalton School, an elite Manhattan preparatory school.
Epstein began his career in high finance at Bear Stearns, where he ascended the ranks to become a limited partner before leaving in 1981 to open his own business.
Shortly thereafter, he founded J. Epstein & Co., a private holding company, which he has been running ever since.
Although Epstein chooses only to manage the money of billionaires, including Wexner, a source familiar with Epstein’s business dealings says the choice does not indicate any hubris on his part.
“It’s not by reason of arrogance,” the source says. “Many people can manage $100 million. Managing $1 billion requires a totally different skill set.”
And it seems Epstein believes he is providing an important service to his incredibly wealthy, and therefore incredibly vulnerable, clients.
“The burden of wealth is often not very well thought out,” the source says. “These people couldn’t imagine their wealth. They have a [Chief Financial Officer], an accountant and stockbrokers, and their financial lives start to look like a house that is added onto every year. At the end it doesn’t work very well.”
His client list is a closely-guarded secret, bar one: Wexner is a long-time client. He is also Epstein’s mentor.
Indeed, friends say his close relationships with Wexner and others have provided him with a brand of informal education.
Epstein briefly studied physics at The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York and New York University’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences but never graduated from either.
Sources close to Epstein say he found the traditional college environment stifling.
But Epstein has never approached learning and living conventionally.
From flying President Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker to Africa to explore the problems of AIDS and economic development facing the region, to hosting the world’s elite minds at his lavish homes in New York, Palm Beach, New Mexico and his private island hideaway, to funding outreach programs to curb the spread of Cholera in Bangladesh, it seems Epstein lets his curiosities guide him.
Friends say Epstein’s scientific, intellectual and philanthropic interests—not his host of homes or his fleet of aircraft—give him the most satisfaction.
And over the past decade, those interests have consistently—and increasingly—led him to Harvard.
“He appreciates excellence,” Kosslyn says. “He thinks we are dong something special and wants to help nurture our institution.”
Friends and associates say Harvard stands only to benefit from his evolving relationship with the university because Epstein comes with more than just deep-pockets.
And Harvard, it seems, welcomes that challenge with open arms.
“He’ll benefit Harvard in a lot of ways,” Dershowitz says. “He’s a lot more interesting than some traditional academics. He has a very probing, inquiring mind. I think he’ll be a great challenge. He’s a real outsider and will challenge the current ways of thinking. He’ll have a substantial impact.”
“I hope that he will—over time—become one of the leading supporters of science at Harvard,” Rosovsky says.
With Epstein’s latest gift, it seems he is on his way to doing just that. Although—if Epstein has his way—few may know when he reaches that threshold.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them