Where are the heretics of tomorrow?

Lynne McTaggart

Tony Edwards, a former top BBC science producer, and a friend of ours, shared a few of his old programs with us the other day. One of them, ‘The Case of ESP,’ was made for Horizon, the BBC’s premier documentary show at the time and broadcast in the 1980s.

Here was 90 minutes of prime air time devoted to the scientific evidence of extra sensory perception, remote viewing and more –what skeptics like to label ‘pseudoscience’ when they’re being polite, but more often just ‘quackery.’

I watched this documentary for the first time yesterday, and it seemed like an artefact from a museum – not because of its reporting or filmic quality, both of which were outstanding, but for the fact that it was allowed on the prime-time television in the first place.

For 20 years, Tony recently shared with me, he’d had the freedom to produce shows like this. He was a very early journalistic pioneer in investigating psi and psychic anomalies, and he was especially recognized for a series he called ‘Heretics.’

He’d been given carte blanche to cover scientists who’d dared to challenge the orthodoxy with novel ideas and experimentation – people like Jacques Benveniste, the late French biologist who’d famously demonstrated that water has a memory of molecular frequency; and the late Robert Jahn, the former dean of engineering at Princeton University, who’d decisively shown through thousands of studies that mind can influence matter.

These renegades were producing discoveries showing that the universe and the way it works were more akin to the messy business of quantum physics than the tidy world of Newtonian science, and they were brave enough to carry on with their experimentation in the face of criticism, censure and worse.

At the time of Tony’s programs their work was already considered the stuff of scientific treason. Some, like Benveniste, had been marginalized. Every so often Robert Jahn, an internationally recognized engineer for his work on spacecraft propulsion, would submit a paper with unimpeachable statistical evidence to an engineering journal, and they would dismiss it out of hand.

Not for the science, but for its shattering implications about the current scientific world view.

But the point is that even so-called heresy was being openly aired in the media.

As censorious as science was about new ideas back then, consider the arc between 1990, when we launched What Doctors Don’t Tell You, and today.

The main reaction to us in the media was universal applause. The London Times called us ‘a voice in the science’ for challenging some medicine that hadn’t been proven and examining holistic treatments with evidence of safety and effectiveness.

Numerous papers and magazines devoted loads of column inches to our ‘bold’ and ‘refreshing’ point of view.  Many doctors themselves subscribed to the magazine, wrote for the magazine and cheered us on.

The Observer wrote that our vital job was to ring the alarm bells about potentially dangerous treatments ‘before they become the stuff of national panic.’

We were wheeled out on TV and radio regularly to provide that point of view. Thorny issues like vaccination were put to public debate.

Because a different point of view was allowed to be aired, to be debated – to exist at all.

I fear now, for many reasons, much of them related to money, those dissenting voices are no longer allowed to be voiced.

Most concern about our modern cancel culture focuses on woke issues like trans rights or books written in during eras with different values, but what seems to have slipped our attention is also the cancelling of any discussion or debate over new ideas, particularly new ideas in science.

Science can only be seen as a process of understanding our world and ourselves – a story in installments – rather than a fixed set of rules for all time, and with the ushering in of the new, the old must often be discarded.

However, with every passing year, mainstream science has grown ever more fundamentalist, dominated by a few highly vocal scientists who believe that the entire scientific story has already been written.

Even more fundamentalist, I’m afraid, is the media, with its insistence on there being one finite truth –the orthodoxy of the day.

As history has repeatedly shown, progress of any sort only occurs with renegades and outliers – and even, as Jack Kerouac once described them, ‘the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, . . . the ones who never . . . say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars.’

Those considered mad today are the geniuses of tomorrow, who remake our world, with every brave scientific question asked, every unlikely answer.

True science resembles a person with a tiny flashlight stumbling around in the dark. He encounters many dead ends and false trails, but when a path opens up and it veers far left of what he expected, he is willing to follow wherever it leads.

Both Benveniste and Jahn had been revered in the scientific establishment - Benveniste for his work on allergies and Jahn for his work on space propulsion – until, they'd had the extraordinary courage to follow something in their work that didn’t fit the scientific paradigm, even if it meant professional suicide.

We need hero scientists like that more than ever today.

But what we need even more is the willingness of mainstream broadcasters like the BBC or NBC to make programs like Tony’s, and for all of us to be willing to watch them, talk about them, argue over them, dismiss or accept them, but allow them to be out there, up for discussion.


If you'd like to see Tony's original video click here.


Facebook Comments

We embed Facebook Comments plugin to allow you to leave comment at our website using your Facebook account. This plugin may collect your IP address, your web browser User Agent, store and retrieve cookies on your browser, embed additional tracking, and monitor your interaction with the commenting interface, including correlating your Facebook account with whatever action you take within the interface (such as “liking” someone’s comment, replying to other comments), if you are logged into Facebook. For more information about how this data may be used, please see Facebook’s data privacy policy: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/update

Lynne McTaggart

Lynne McTaggart is an award-winning journalist and the author of seven books, including the worldwide international bestsellers The Power of Eight, The Field, The Intention Experiment and The Bond, all considered seminal books of the New Science and now translated into some 30 languages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 comments on “Where are the heretics of tomorrow?”

  1. I love this, Lynn!!!: "Those considered mad today are the geniuses of tomorrow, who remake our world, with every brave scientific question asked, every unlikely answer." Please visit my website: luvmor.com and read Chapter 25 in my book, Love More by Lisa Garmon. You will find proof that we can use our marvelous minds to lower the intensity of natural disasters - we can even refreeze the tundra and save our planet. If we don't, who will?
    Look for it on prime time news in the months ahead. Or sooner! Infinite Intelligence determines when this work will be completed.

  2. I have and still do love reading Rudolf Steiners lectures and books. Some of his predictions are ringing true today especially his thoughts on the vaccine. He really makes me think and contemplate what he’s saying , it’s a dig into the depths of my being and I find myself completely engaged and curious and wanting to know and understand more . I can feel so much truth In what he’s saying . I watched Stargate on Netflix the other night, I believe that was filmed back in the 80’s also, it is very interesting to see how much has changed in such a short amount of time and how they portray the military meeting up with other life on different planets. Thank you for sharing.

  3. I must say actually I have seen this one before. It is a lovely documentary though.

  4. Really enjoyed reading this, Lynne and I agree with you. I took worked for the BBC in the eighties and nineties and it was precisely because of these possibilities that it was such an exciting place to be. But I've been noticing with my friends, that we can't discuss what we have recently viewed - say a drama - because many will have binge-watched it and if I'm half way through the series watching one a week - they can spoil my trajectory and they've forgotten most it by now anyway! Which made me think of science programmes, docs etc. Technology has changed everything - when do we all watch the same thing at the same time? When we're all running down a zillion different rabbit holes, it's difficult to have perspective, to remember the details well enough to first explain the content to someone else in order to have a discussion, when the other person hasn't had a direct experience? So easy then for content to become polarised. And fear to fill in the gaps. It's frightening.

  5. Lynne, there is a question that arises from the PK experiments, which is how "real" is the reality that is being affected? In other words is reality a consciously created phenomenon that, as Max Planck suggested, lay behind the behaviour of quanta. If that was the case quanta are the beginning of the physical dimension and by Isaac Newton's Law of Gravity that states, "Everything with mass is attracted to everything else with mass, from an atom to a planet". The cosmos started not with a bang but an inaudible clash of two quanta, having their own space as David Bohm calculated, of 10 -33 cm. In that case the physical dimension is the product of another supra physical dimension, possibly conscious.

Why wait any longer when you’ve already been waiting your entire life?

Sign up and receive FREE GIFTS including The Power of Eight® handbook and a special video from Lynne! 

Top usercarttagbubblemagnifiercrosschevron-down