What Does It Mean to 'Trust the Science'?

In the featured video,1 James Corbett of The Corbett Report explores what it means to "trust the science," demolishing along the way the notion that science can ever be "settled" and beyond question. This is important, because scientific deception will continue to be used in the biosecurity state being built around us. What Science Should You Trust? With increasing frequency, we're told to "trust the science" and "follow the science." Yet what science are we supposed to follow? Exactly who's an expert and who's not, and who decides which is which? As I've been writing about for nearly two years now, there's plenty of scientific evidence refuting everything we're being told to accept as "fact." This includes the claim that masks protect against viral infection, that lockdowns slow down the spread, that school closures protect children, that there are no effective early treatments for COVID-19, and that the fast-tracked COVID shots are safe, effective and necessary even if you have natural immunity. Whistleblowers Expose Corruption at the EPA Corbett starts out by reviewing a recent Intercept story, published in two parts: "Whistleblowers Expose Corruption in EPA Chemical Safety Office,"2 published July 2, 2021, and "Leaked Audio Shows Pressure to Overrule Scientists in 'Hair-On-Fire' Cases,"3 published August 4, 2021. According to four whistleblowers — Elyse Osterweil, Martin Phillips, Sarah Gallagher and William Irwin, all of whom are scientists employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and hold doctorates in toxicology, chemistry, biochemistry and medicinal chemistry — managers and career staffers in the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention have tampered with the risk assessments of dozens of chemicals to hide their dangers. According to The Intercept:4 "The whistleblowers, whose jobs involve identifying the potential harms posed by new chemicals, provided The Intercept with detailed evidence of pressure within the agency to minimize or remove evidence of potential adverse effects of the chemicals, including neurological effects, birth defects, and cancer. On several occasions, information about hazards was deleted from agency assessments without informing or seeking the consent of the scientists who authored them. Some of these cases led the EPA to withhold critical information from the public about potentially dangerous chemical exposures. In other cases, the removal of the hazard information or the altering of the scientists' conclusions in reports paved the way for the use of chemicals, which otherwise would not have been allowed on the market." At the EPA, Following the Science Is a Punishable Offense The EPA, according to these whistleblowers, is violating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and when staffers actually do follow the science wherever it leads, they are punished. In a statement to The Intercept and Rep. Ro Khanna, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the EPA whistleblowers state that they fear "their actions (or inactions) at the direction of management are resulting in harm to human health and the environment." They certainly have cause for concern. For example, one recent study5 warns exposure to organochlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers during pregnancy can cause the chemicals to accumulate in multiple fetal organs and contribute to chronic health problems. This is the first study to demonstrate that toxic chemicals can be present in the fetus even if the mother does not have detectable levels in her blood. As noted by Beyond Pesticides:6 “… studies like these help government and health officials better identify fetal exposure contaminants and subsequent health concerns otherwise missed by current chemical monitoring methods.” In Part 27 of its report, The Intercept discusses a particular chemical that Irwin had been assessing. He had concerns that the unnamed chemical in question was analogous to bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical now recognized for its detrimental effects on reproduction, fertility and human hormones. When he refused to sign off on the chemical as safe, he was removed from the assessment, and the chemical was approved, despite the potential harms he'd uncovered. So, what scientists should we trust? Scientists like these four whistleblowers? Or "the EPA" as a catchall designation, where corrupt career managers have overruled the scientists doing the actual work and who have the actual science credentials? Believing (the Wrong) Science Now Proves You're Racist As noted by Corbett, this issue is no small matter. Determining what science is "valid" and what's not has enormous repercussions for society. To illustrate his point, he goes on to review the issue of hormone-disrupting chemicals and their reproductive effects. Some scientists have sounded the alarm, saying our reproductive capability is so severely impacted by toxic environm

What Does It Mean to 'Trust the Science'?

In the featured video,1 James Corbett of The Corbett Report explores what it means to "trust the science," demolishing along the way the notion that science can ever be "settled" and beyond question. This is important, because scientific deception will continue to be used in the biosecurity state being built around us.

What Science Should You Trust?

With increasing frequency, we're told to "trust the science" and "follow the science." Yet what science are we supposed to follow? Exactly who's an expert and who's not, and who decides which is which? As I've been writing about for nearly two years now, there's plenty of scientific evidence refuting everything we're being told to accept as "fact."

This includes the claim that masks protect against viral infection, that lockdowns slow down the spread, that school closures protect children, that there are no effective early treatments for COVID-19, and that the fast-tracked COVID shots are safe, effective and necessary even if you have natural immunity.

Whistleblowers Expose Corruption at the EPA

Corbett starts out by reviewing a recent Intercept story, published in two parts: "Whistleblowers Expose Corruption in EPA Chemical Safety Office,"2 published July 2, 2021, and "Leaked Audio Shows Pressure to Overrule Scientists in 'Hair-On-Fire' Cases,"3 published August 4, 2021.

According to four whistleblowers — Elyse Osterweil, Martin Phillips, Sarah Gallagher and William Irwin, all of whom are scientists employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and hold doctorates in toxicology, chemistry, biochemistry and medicinal chemistry — managers and career staffers in the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention have tampered with the risk assessments of dozens of chemicals to hide their dangers. According to The Intercept:4

"The whistleblowers, whose jobs involve identifying the potential harms posed by new chemicals, provided The Intercept with detailed evidence of pressure within the agency to minimize or remove evidence of potential adverse effects of the chemicals, including neurological effects, birth defects, and cancer.

On several occasions, information about hazards was deleted from agency assessments without informing or seeking the consent of the scientists who authored them.

Some of these cases led the EPA to withhold critical information from the public about potentially dangerous chemical exposures. In other cases, the removal of the hazard information or the altering of the scientists' conclusions in reports paved the way for the use of chemicals, which otherwise would not have been allowed on the market."

At the EPA, Following the Science Is a Punishable Offense

The EPA, according to these whistleblowers, is violating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and when staffers actually do follow the science wherever it leads, they are punished.

In a statement to The Intercept and Rep. Ro Khanna, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the EPA whistleblowers state that they fear "their actions (or inactions) at the direction of management are resulting in harm to human health and the environment."

They certainly have cause for concern. For example, one recent study5 warns exposure to organochlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers during pregnancy can cause the chemicals to accumulate in multiple fetal organs and contribute to chronic health problems. This is the first study to demonstrate that toxic chemicals can be present in the fetus even if the mother does not have detectable levels in her blood. As noted by Beyond Pesticides:6

“… studies like these help government and health officials better identify fetal exposure contaminants and subsequent health concerns otherwise missed by current chemical monitoring methods.”

In Part 27 of its report, The Intercept discusses a particular chemical that Irwin had been assessing. He had concerns that the unnamed chemical in question was analogous to bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical now recognized for its detrimental effects on reproduction, fertility and human hormones.

When he refused to sign off on the chemical as safe, he was removed from the assessment, and the chemical was approved, despite the potential harms he'd uncovered.

So, what scientists should we trust? Scientists like these four whistleblowers? Or "the EPA" as a catchall designation, where corrupt career managers have overruled the scientists doing the actual work and who have the actual science credentials?

Believing (the Wrong) Science Now Proves You're Racist

As noted by Corbett, this issue is no small matter. Determining what science is "valid" and what's not has enormous repercussions for society. To illustrate his point, he goes on to review the issue of hormone-disrupting chemicals and their reproductive effects.

Some scientists have sounded the alarm, saying our reproductive capability is so severely impacted by toxic environmental factors that by 2045, all couples will require fertility treatment if they want to conceive. Sperm counts have dropped precipitously ever since the 1970s, and the trend is showing no signs of leveling off.

If true, this signals a true existential emergency, but as has become the norm over the past couple of years, the declining sperm count issue is now being reframed as a racist, "far right" issue. This in and of itself ought to signal that we've left science and moved into ideology, but no.

The narrative we're asked to swallow is the complete opposite: That the scientists who made these discoveries used sham science to fit an ideological narrative rooted in white supremacy. Meanwhile, "the science" offered by nonscientists says there's no problem here, and that's that.

Corbett cites a Quillette article by Geoffrey Kabat, "The Sperm Count Culture War," published mid-June 2021, which states:8

"The latest entry in the sperm count debate comes from a Harvard-MIT research team led by philosophy professors Marion Boulicault and Sarah Richardson.

They recently published a paper in the journal Human Fertility entitled 'The Future of Sperm Variability for Understanding Global Sperm Count Trends.' They also published an article in Slate9 summarizing their findings for a lay audience.

While the scientific paper is dense and difficult to navigate, the Slate article gets straight to the point with its title: 'The Doomsday Sperm Theory Embraced by the Far Right.'

Its subheading elaborates: 'The idea that male fertility is on the decline is an old myth dressed up as science.' The authors tell us why they believe the accepted science on declining sperm counts should be rejected:

'The human species is in grave reproductive danger, according to recent headlines. Some scientists say that sperm counts in men around the world have been plummeting, with Western men approaching total infertility by 2045.

Far-right 'Great Replacement' theorists, who fear that people of color are 'replacing' the white population, have taken up the research with gusto …

The narrative that white, Western men are in danger of emasculation and disappearance has deep roots in white nationalist discourse. It is tied to a nostalgic cultural myth of a past in which white men held unchallenged power.'"

Human Extinction Concerns Dismissed as Fearmongering

As noted by Kabat, the two philosophy professors "all but ignore the science to focus on what they believe is more important — the ideological framing of the issue in socio-cultural discourse."

Interestingly, the paper they published is in response to "what is widely considered to be the most definitive research on science of sperm count decline," Kabat notes, and perhaps that's why they did it. It's real science being debunked as "science driven by ideology," by nonscientists who have an ideological agenda but pretend not to!

Here we have two philosophy professors trying to debunk 50 years of research by some of the most respected researchers in the field — by declaring the whole investigation racist, misogynistic and "overtly white supremacist." They roundly dismiss concerns about impending global infertility and thus human extinction, stating:10

"What these anxieties have in common with the threat of sperm count decline is the premise that, in an environmentally clean and appropriately-gendered social past, there existed an optimal and natural manifestation of masculinity …

It is all too easy for scientific institutions, with majority-white researchers, to center white people and further these myths, which circulate often unconsciously … The recent sperm count decline research demonstrates how racist, sexist, and Eurocentric ideas can get embedded in the categories that scientists use to analyze data."

In their paper, Boulicault et.al. offer their own hypothesis to explain and dismiss the decline in sperm count as a natural variation that has no bearing on fertility or health — none of which is accurate or true.

Expertise Matters

The take-home message here is that philosophy professors can depose (or at least attempt to depose) a team of reproductive health scientists who have spent their entire careers looking at this issue, simply by interjecting their own ideology into the mix, all while accusing the actual scientists of ideology-based hype. And here's how mainstream media covered this clearly insufficient debunking attempt:11

  • Yahoo! News — "Freaking Out About Declining Sperm Count? Don't, Harvard Researchers Say."
  • The Telegraph — "Threat of Human Extinction from Falling Sperm Counts Greatly Exaggerated."
  • Haaretz — "Spermaggedon in the West? Relax, Harvard Has Good News for You."
  • Vox — "Sperm Counts Are Falling. This Isn't the Reproductive Apocalypse — Yet."

Kabat writes:12

"None of the news stories … so much as remarked on the inflammatory rhetoric of the Boulicault paper, which will appear to the fair-minded reader as an activist manifesto masquerading as a scientific hypothesis. Even the New York Times fumbled this. It provided a useful discussion of some of the questions raised by the Harvard study and presented different points of view …

But it treated the study as a serious critique of the sperm count controversy, giving no indication of Boulicault and colleagues' ideological framing of the issue or that their alternative hypothesis has little to do with science …

It is difficult to explain the deference paid to the Harvard paper by various commentators. Perhaps we are in a time in which even trained scientists are reluctant to call out an uninformed but ideologically fashionable treatment of a high-profile issue."

Are You Seeing How This Applies to the COVID Narrative?

These stories tell us a lot about our current situation, where ideological gatekeepers are commanding us to "look here, not there." Actual, reproducible science by bonafide scientists is being dismissed as "ideology masquerading as science," while fake or flimsy science is being held up as the only science worthy of that designation.

If you chose to trust science that counters the technocratic transhumanist Deep State narrative, well, then you're labeled a racist, a misogynist, a white supremacist, a domestic terrorist or some other unpleasant and derogatory term, the only purpose of which is to shame and shut you up.

As noted by Corbett, when politicians and health authorities urge us to "trust the science," they are referring to select agency-branded science, meaning science that has the stamp of approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Health Organization, for example.

The assumption we're supposed to accept is that these organizations aren't tainted by the kind of corruption we're now told exists within the EPA — financially driven corruption that sidelines actual scientists, even within those organizations, that may have serious concerns. But regulatory capture is a longstanding problem, and there's no evidence to suggest it's been rooted out of the agencies we're now told to trust without question. As noted by Corbett:

"As 'The Science' more and more dictates whether you can step outside your own home, or what kind of experimental interventions you are forced or coerced into putting into your body against your will, I hope you understand that the stakes have been raised to the point where this is not some mere philosophical concern. This is the heart of the biosecurity state that we are being steeped in."

Source : Mercola More   

What's Your Reaction?

like
0
dislike
0
love
0
funny
0
angry
0
sad
0
wow
0

Next Article

Why Science Is Losing to Authoritarian Mass Murderers

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought out an unprecedented attack on science, which has accelerated flaws already apparent in the scientific method and published literature. Even prior to the pandemic, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest and bias were rampant in the scientific and academic communities, but a community had emerged to get back to scientific integrity and understand and minimize bias. “One might therefore have hoped that the pandemic crisis could have fostered change,” wrote John Ioannidis, professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University, in Tablet. “Indeed, change did happen — but perhaps mostly for the worst.”1 Skepticism Gets Caught Up in Political Warfare During the pandemic, skepticism has been met with backlash and censorship, acts that have only further hindered science. Healthy skepticism is a necessary part of science, but one that is often confused with denial. While denial describes a belief that persists even when evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, skepticism, as reported by NASA, “allows scientists to reach logical conclusions supported by evidence that has been examined and confirmed by others in the same field, even when that evidence does not confirm absolute certainty.” They continue:2 “Skepticism helps scientists to remain objective when performing scientific inquiry and research. It forces them to examine claims (their own and those of others) to be certain that there is sufficient evidence to back them up. Skeptics do not doubt every claim, only those backed by insufficient evidence or by data that have been improperly collected, are not relevant or cannot support the rationale being made.” During the pandemic, skepticism has been regarded as the enemy and skeptics labeled as conspiracy theorists. Respected leaders in fields have been threatened with discipline and even loss of their licenses for questioning the official narrative. In one example, Dr. Jeremy Henrichs, a member of the Mahomet-Seymour school board and a physician for the University of Illinois Athletic Department, was targeted by state investigators who said they had opened an official investigation due to his skepticism of mandatory masks in classrooms.3 The state agency later issued a letter of apology to Henrichs, backpedaling on their inquiry,4 but many other “skeptics” have not been so lucky. While healthy skepticism has become viewed as intolerable, the COVID-19 science cult — made “out of science, expertise, the university system, executive-branch ‘norms,’ the ‘intelligence community,’ the State Department, NGOs, the legacy news media, and the hierarchy of credentialed achievement in general”5 — has been held as gospel during the pandemic. Meanwhile, many credible reputations have been destroyed in the name of public health and the “war” against a virus:6 “This is a dirty war, one without dignity. Opponents were threatened, abused, and bullied by cancel culture campaigns in social media, hit stories in mainstream media, and bestsellers written by zealots. Statements were distorted, turned into straw men, and ridiculed. Wikipedia pages were vandalized. Reputations were systematically devastated and destroyed. Many brilliant scientists were abused and received threats during the pandemic, intended to make them and their families miserable.” Authoritarian Public Health Over Science “Science” has become a loaded word, one used as a basis for decisions that affect basic freedoms, life and death itself. However, as Ioannidis explained, science isn’t based on facts but interpretations, often in the context of political warfare:7 “Organized skepticism was seen as a threat to public health. There was a clash between two schools of thought, authoritarian public health versus science — and science lost. Honest, continuous questioning and exploration of alternative paths are indispensable for good science. In the authoritarian (as opposed to participatory) version of public health, these activities were seen as treason and desertion. The dominant narrative became that ‘we are at war.’ When at war, everyone has to follow orders. If a platoon is ordered to go right and some soldiers explore maneuvering to the left, they are shot as deserters. Scientific skepticism had to be shot, no questions asked. The orders were clear.” What’s less clear is who gave these “orders” that dissenters must be silenced. Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist, has described it as a form of psychosis or a group neurosis.8 Ioannidis also believes that some form of societal dysfunction has pushed groupthink ahead of science during the pandemic:9 “It was not a single person, not a crazy general or a despicable politician or a dictator, even if political interference in science did happen — massively so. It was all of us, a conglomerate that has no name and no face: a mesh and mess of

Why Science Is Losing to Authoritarian Mass Murderers

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought out an unprecedented attack on science, which has accelerated flaws already apparent in the scientific method and published literature. Even prior to the pandemic, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest and bias were rampant in the scientific and academic communities, but a community had emerged to get back to scientific integrity and understand and minimize bias.

“One might therefore have hoped that the pandemic crisis could have fostered change,” wrote John Ioannidis, professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University, in Tablet. “Indeed, change did happen — but perhaps mostly for the worst.”1

Skepticism Gets Caught Up in Political Warfare

During the pandemic, skepticism has been met with backlash and censorship, acts that have only further hindered science. Healthy skepticism is a necessary part of science, but one that is often confused with denial.

While denial describes a belief that persists even when evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, skepticism, as reported by NASA, “allows scientists to reach logical conclusions supported by evidence that has been examined and confirmed by others in the same field, even when that evidence does not confirm absolute certainty.” They continue:2

“Skepticism helps scientists to remain objective when performing scientific inquiry and research. It forces them to examine claims (their own and those of others) to be certain that there is sufficient evidence to back them up.

Skeptics do not doubt every claim, only those backed by insufficient evidence or by data that have been improperly collected, are not relevant or cannot support the rationale being made.”

During the pandemic, skepticism has been regarded as the enemy and skeptics labeled as conspiracy theorists. Respected leaders in fields have been threatened with discipline and even loss of their licenses for questioning the official narrative.

In one example, Dr. Jeremy Henrichs, a member of the Mahomet-Seymour school board and a physician for the University of Illinois Athletic Department, was targeted by state investigators who said they had opened an official investigation due to his skepticism of mandatory masks in classrooms.3

The state agency later issued a letter of apology to Henrichs, backpedaling on their inquiry,4 but many other “skeptics” have not been so lucky.

While healthy skepticism has become viewed as intolerable, the COVID-19 science cult — made “out of science, expertise, the university system, executive-branch ‘norms,’ the ‘intelligence community,’ the State Department, NGOs, the legacy news media, and the hierarchy of credentialed achievement in general”5 — has been held as gospel during the pandemic.

Meanwhile, many credible reputations have been destroyed in the name of public health and the “war” against a virus:6

“This is a dirty war, one without dignity. Opponents were threatened, abused, and bullied by cancel culture campaigns in social media, hit stories in mainstream media, and bestsellers written by zealots. Statements were distorted, turned into straw men, and ridiculed. Wikipedia pages were vandalized.

Reputations were systematically devastated and destroyed. Many brilliant scientists were abused and received threats during the pandemic, intended to make them and their families miserable.”

Authoritarian Public Health Over Science

“Science” has become a loaded word, one used as a basis for decisions that affect basic freedoms, life and death itself. However, as Ioannidis explained, science isn’t based on facts but interpretations, often in the context of political warfare:7

“Organized skepticism was seen as a threat to public health. There was a clash between two schools of thought, authoritarian public health versus science — and science lost.

Honest, continuous questioning and exploration of alternative paths are indispensable for good science. In the authoritarian (as opposed to participatory) version of public health, these activities were seen as treason and desertion.

The dominant narrative became that ‘we are at war.’ When at war, everyone has to follow orders. If a platoon is ordered to go right and some soldiers explore maneuvering to the left, they are shot as deserters. Scientific skepticism had to be shot, no questions asked. The orders were clear.”

What’s less clear is who gave these “orders” that dissenters must be silenced. Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist, has described it as a form of psychosis or a group neurosis.8 Ioannidis also believes that some form of societal dysfunction has pushed groupthink ahead of science during the pandemic:9

“It was not a single person, not a crazy general or a despicable politician or a dictator, even if political interference in science did happen — massively so.

It was all of us, a conglomerate that has no name and no face: a mesh and mess of half-cooked evidence; frenzied and partisan media promoting parachute journalism and pack coverage; the proliferation of pseudonymous and eponymous social media personas which led even serious scientists to become unrestrained, wild-beast avatars of themselves, spitting massive quantities of inanity and nonsense; poorly regulated industry and technology companies flexing their brain and marketing power; and common people afflicted by the protracted crisis.

All swim in a mixture of some good intentions, some excellent thinking, and some splendid scientific successes, but also of conflicts, political polarization, fear, panic, hatred, divisiveness, fake news, censorship, inequalities, racism, and chronic and acute societal dysfunction.”

Lies Surround COVID-19 Origin

One of the most heated scientific debates is whether COVID-19 originated in a laboratory or from a natural source. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — has denied funding gain-of-function (GOF) research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), even though evidence shows he did.10

Speaking with Newsweek, Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology, said that documents released by a FOIA lawsuit show without doubt that grants from NIH were used to fund GOF research at WIV, and that Fauci lied about it:11

“The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement in Wuhan are untruthful."

Much of the controversial research was carried out by the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance. Fauci told a House Appropriations subcommittee that more than $600,000 was given to EcoHealth Alliance, which funneled the money to WIV, over a five-year period for the purpose of studying bat coronaviruses and whether they could be transmitted to humans.12,13

The FOIA documents, which were released by The Intercept,14 reveal GOF research using humanized mice and coronaviruses. Ebright told The Intercept, “The viruses they constructed were tested for their ability to infect mice that were engineered to display human type receptors on their cell … While they were working on SARS-related coronavirus, they were carrying out a parallel project at the same time on MERS-related coronavirus.”15

China has also refused to be transparent over what took place at WIV and other laboratories. “Opening the lab books of the Wuhan Institute of Virology would have alleviated concerns immediately. Without such openness about which experiments were done, lab leak theories remain tantalizingly credible,” Ioannidis said.16

The coverups to obstruct research into COVID-19’s origin have further eroded public trust in scientists,17 the ramifications of which are likely to be felt long after the pandemic.

“[I]f full public data-sharing cannot happen even for a question relevant to the deaths of millions and the suffering of billions, what hope is there for scientific transparency and a sharing culture?” Ioannidis added. “Whatever the origins of the virus, the refusal to abide by formerly accepted norms has done its own enormous damage."18

If it turns out that SARS-CoV-2 did come from a lab, it’s the type of thing “that could obliterate the faith of millions.”19 To go from actively censoring and ridiculing those who urged officials to investigate the lab-leak theory further to suggesting they may have been right all along, is to call into question every other detail we’ve been told to believe about the COVID-19 narrative, and beyond.

Big Tech Has Become the Regulator Instead of the Regulated

Scientific norms are rapidly changing during the pandemic, such that everyone is suddenly an expert. Ioannidis reported that by August 2021, 330,000 scientific papers had been published about COVID-19, written by about 1 million different people.20

There are 174 scientific subfields, and all of them had specialists who published papers on COVID-19. Ioannidis and colleagues called “the rapid and massive involvement of the scientific workforce in COVID-19-related work” unprecedented21 but noted that much of it is fundamentally flawed:22

“[W]e have anecdotally noted that many published contributions represent situations of epistemic trespassing, where scientists try to address COVID-19 health and medical questions, although they come from unrelated fields and probably lack fundamental subject-matter expertise.”

Social and mainstream media have played a role in deciding who is an “expert” and who is not, while those who questioned the “expert” data or asked for more evidence were vilified — a “dismissive, authoritarian approach ‘in defense of science.’”23 The end result is an altered reality in which heavily conflicted corporations have emerged as regulators of society instead of being regulated themselves:24

“Other potentially conflicted entities became the new societal regulators, rather than the ones being regulated. Big Tech companies, which gained trillions of dollars in cumulative market value from the virtual transformation of human life during lockdown, developed powerful censorship machineries that skewed the information available to users on their platforms.

Consultants who made millions of dollars from corporate and government consultation were given prestigious positions, power, and public praise, while unconflicted scientists who worked pro bono but dared to question dominant narratives were smeared as being conflicted.”

The end result is that many scientists self-censored to avoid getting caught in the crossfire, which represents “a major loss for scientific investigation and the public health effort.” Yet, it remains true that the path to good science and the truth depends on continued scientific exploration, challenges and skepticism — all things that have been seen as anathema due to the authoritarian control that has taken over during the pandemic.

Source : Mercola More   

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.