In the Name of Science-who’s science?

Brazilian scientists and academics write an Open Letter on the “science” of the coronavirus pandemic -Posted on 26/05/2020

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3848572/posts

'Nobody, absolutely nobody is allowed to speak for science or declare that he is “been guided” by science! ‘

Richard Feynman put it this way: “Science is the culture of doubt”. And I would add, “science is the culture of debate, of divergence of opinions”.

 Rarely, there are situations in which we reach consensus in science, even a momentary consensus. Some defend the “Big Bang” and the theory of evolution, others, including myself, are skeptical of them. Some defend with data and papers the central role of men in global warming, others defend, with the same data and papers, that human activity is irrelevant. Scientists are human beings, therefore, skeptics and enquirers who can and should speak for themselves, like all scientists have the right to do, but NEVER A SCIENTIST OR A GROUP OF THEM CAN DECLARE TO BE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE!

Nobody, absolutely nobody is allowed to speak for science or declare that he is “been guided” by science! In times of pandemic, this impossibility is even greater,
as we face an unknown enemy. Data is still being collected and researches are being performed and published by scientists divided by their worldviews, and by their political and party preferences.

 Whoever said he acted in the name of science, dishonestly usurped science prestige. For what type of “science” is this, unanimous and consensual, that no one has ever heard of? Could someone give me its address so I can confirm its consent? Its phone, email and WhatsApp?

Who then speaks here in the name of “science”? Which group has a monopoly on reason and its exclusive authorization to be the spokesperson of “science”? Where is such authorization found?

One can choose an opinion, and base his strategy on it, this is fine, but no one should commit the sacrilege of protecting his decision risking to tarnish with it the “sacred mantle of science”.

Outraged, every day I hear mayors and governors saying at the top of their lungs that they “have followed science”. Presidents of councils and some of their advisers, and of academies and deans in their offices write letters on behalf of their entire community, as if they reflect everyone’s consensual position. Nothing could be more false.

Have they followed science? Not at all! They have followed the science wing which they like, and the scientists who they chose to place around them. They ignore the other wing of science, since there are also hundreds of scientists and articles that oppose their positions and measures.

Worse, scientists are not angels. Scientists are people, and people have likes and dislikes, passions and political party preferences. Or wouldn’t they? There are many scientists, therefore, who do good without looking at whom, I know and admire many of them. But there are also pseudoscientists who use science to defend their opinion, their own pocket, or their passion. Scientists have worked and still work hard and detached to contribute to the good of humanity, many of whom are now in their laboratories, risking their lives to develop new methods of detecting coronavirus, drugs and vaccines, when they could stay “safe at home”. But, to illustrate my point, I know scientists who have published articles, some even in major journals such as “Science” or “Nature”, with data they have manufactured “during the night”; others who have removed points from their curves, or used other similar strategies. Many scientists were at Hitler’s side, weren’t they? Did they act in the name of “science”? Others have developed atom bombs. Others still develop chemical and biological weapons and illicit drugs, by design.

This is science, not the “science” that I like or the “science” that others have appropriated it, but the “science” that we have here and now, based on the current facts, based on reason.

Finally, let us all remember that in the face of a new disease and its extremely rapid progression in the most debilitated patients with very serious complications, and so many uncertainties in the diagnosis, and as we don’t treat papers or health forms, but PEOPLE, it is imperative to the doctor look face to face their patients and decide invoking not the “science of some”, but the valuable compass of medicine that has saved many lives since the beginnings of medicine: “THE CLINIC IS SOVEREIGN!”

 

COVID Information is Now a War Between Politician Doctors and Practicing Physicians- October 23 , 2020

https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/doctors-vs-doctors-whos-telling-the-truth/

 The politician TV doctors claim they have “science” on their side, but that is only because they use their own definition of “science,” which really has nothing to do with “truth,” but AUTHORITY.

If you read or listen carefully to what they say, you will soon understand they just want the public to trust them because they are “doctors,” and claim to represent a consensus in the “scientific community.”

But if you do your own “fact checking” and search the medical and scientific literature yourself, which few do, it will become very obvious that they do not have the truth or facts on their side most of the time.

 One of the most obvious examples currently affecting nearly everyone, is the belief that face masks will prevent disease and save lives.

The scientific literature states the exact opposite, and even studies, REAL studies, done on comparing operating rooms where surgeons where face masks to prevent infection, with surgeons who do not, show that the outcomes of hospital acquired infections are NOT affected by face masks, even though it is a general belief held by most. 

(https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/the-great-unmasking-studies-in-the-medical-literature-show-fewer-infections-in-surgery-when-medical-staff-do-not-wear-masks/

https://www.technocracy.news/flashback-2016-face-masks-didnt-work-then-either/)

So if the truth is that face masks do not protect us from COVID, and the science backs this up, how have so many people become convinced of just the opposite?

By using a political media doctor to tell everyone he/she is correct, based on his/her scientific credentials, and that everyone else who disagrees with them is wrong.

And scare the hell out of everyone in the process so they obey!

 

Observations!

As for the medical staff and ‘ experts ‘ going along with it. 
Beside  the money incentive / links with pharma or  doing as told to keeping a job , many actually believing their  dangerous dogmas without looking at the research or understanding the research .
Reminds me of an interview with a scholar who made a very acute observation, people may read but not understand what they are reading.

As for the direction of the medical education someone wrote a good comment

'Another word for educated is trained. A good dog jumps through hoops at the crack of a whip. A well trained dog needs no whip. He jumps through the hoop without being told. One of the main functions of today's education is to silently remove any critical thinking that arose in early life and replace it with training and a narrow definition of critical thinking. '

 

field_vote: 
10
Average: 10 (1 vote)

Comments

I assume I can add a comment to my blog As only came across it today.

HealthGuard provides patients and healthcare workers with detailed trust ratings–conducted by trained journalists–for hundreds of health news and information sites.(https://www.newsguardtech.com/healthguard-overview/)

Really? What nonsense , journalist educationg health professionals.

Careers.

At NewsGuard, we believe that the problem of online misinformation is best addressed not by artificial intelligence, but by human intelligence. We use journalism to rate and review thousands of news and information sites—from major media brands to niche blogs to hoax sites that spread falsehoods to generate ad clicks—using nine journalistic criteria and a rigorous, transparent process. By creating a standard for understanding the credibility of news sources online, we aim to restore trust and accountability to journalism.

We’re recruiting a diverse, talented team of journalists, editors, fact-checkers, and others to help us do so.

Building Trust for All
Whom We’re Looking For
Apply to Work at NewsGuard

So what happened to scientists, scientific journnals and scientific research and scientific peer review.
Journalist will decide ?

If someone wants to read more on the nonsense. it is a disgrace.

RATING CATEGORIES

https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/rating-process-criteria/

Our ideal candidate values accuracy, fairness, and journalistic rigor.
So basically favours bullshit as has no understanding of basic biology , science, research.
Just unbelievable.

Will need to go back to Karry Muller

‘ Kary Mullis
‘Most people at the top are Administrative people that do not know anything about what is going on with the body, those guys have an agenda.
They make up their own rules as they go, they change them when they want to and Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly to the camera.’

‘Fauci does not understand electron-microscopy, he does not understand medicine and he should not be in the position he is in.’

‘You cannot expect the sheep to really respect the best and the brightest as they do not know the difference, really. The vast majority of people have not the ability to judge who is and is not a good scientist. That is the main problem with science I would say in this century.
Science is being judged by people, funding is being done by people who do not understand it.’
‘Who do we trust? Fauci.’

Reading something and parroting what you read and understanding is a different story.
And the biggest con is saying I can read science . Biology is different , far to complex for humans to understand . It is less exact than other  sciences  as to many  variables   and unknowns.
A bit like saying I studied languages, just because you speak eg Italian does not mean you understand another latin language, it may be easier to learn it.
The other difference is clinical vs learning from books. In vitro and  in vivo/ reality is different. So without clinical experience  or correlation to see what works or does not work they are just theories produced in the lab and learned from books.

 

 

 

 

 

<p>CP</p>

More oncensorship of science

Vaccination and Censorship: The Truth Will Set Us Free

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/06/vaccination-and-censorship.aspx?ui=351b973b51dd8d94b40d43b54c99780f794c82daa03fe9c71f963a4ce91bf507&amp;sd=20101212&amp;cid_source=dnl&amp;cid_medium=email&amp;cid_content=art1HL&amp;cid=20210206&amp;mid=DM784180&amp;rid=1076936870

On December 22, 2020, a nonprofit limited company based in Great Britain that calls itself the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)1,2,3 published a report titled "The Anti-Vaxx Playbook."4

It contains false and misleading information about the Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination, which was sponsored by the 39-year-old U.S. nonprofit educational charity the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), and held online in October 2020. Promotion of the CCDH report resulted in the spreading of fake news and misinformation by mainline media outlets in Great Britain and the U.S.5,6,7,8,9

NVIC's pay-for-view digital conference10 was transparently open to the public and featured presentations by 51 speakers from the U.S. and other countries discussing vaccine science, public health policy and law, informed consent and civil liberties.

Dedicated to "Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century," the conference was made available on February 2, 2021 for free viewing online. Go to NVIC.org11 to access the conference website and watch all of the presentations.

 

Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century," the conference

https://www.protectinghealthandautonomyinthe21stcentury.com/

Session 1
“Show Us the Science”
The quality and quantity of the science being used to buttress public health policy and law in the 21 st century, particularly vaccine policy and law, has been debated since the mid-20th century when serious adverse reactions to whole-cell pertussis (DPT) vaccine were acknowledged in the medical literature and publicized in Europe and the U.S. This 2020 conference, like the four previous public conferences on vaccination sponsored by NVIC between 1997 and 2009, features presentations by scientists, physicians, and health professionals examining vaccine science policy, law, and ethics. Multidisciplinary Approach.

During Session 1 of this conference, scientific information is provided by speakers with expertise in biology and bioinorganic chemistry; pediatrics, immunology, and molecular genetics, physics, health research methods, pharmaceutical policy, family practice, internal medicine, pathology and molecular diagnostics, molecular and cellular physiology, pharmacology, immunotoxicology, and microbiology. Speakers discuss vaccine ingredients, monitoring vaccine side effects, epidemiology of SARS-Cov-2, development of COVID-19 vaccines, flaws in clinical trial designs, pharmaceutical product marketing, HPV vaccine risk factors, use of human fetal cell lines to produce and test vaccines, research into the reported association between inflammation, epigenetics and autism, and how human health is affected by the microbiome.


 

 

<p>CP</p>

https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/scientific-proof-is-a-myth-the-limitations-of-science-and-the-medical-paradigm/

The Limits of Science in a Nutshell

The limits of science can be condensed into the following nineteen statements:

1. Science explains nothing; it can only describe.

2. Science proves nothing; it can only verify or disprove.

3. Science cannot deal directly with subjective experience; it can only deal with the objective.

4. “Scientific” does not necessarily mean right, valid, or best; it only means that a certain method was followed.

5. “Objective” does not necessarily mean right, valid or best; it only means that observations are independent of the observer and can be measured scientifically.

6. “Subjective” does not mean invalid or irrelevant; it only means that observations are dependent upon the observer and cannot be measured scientifically.

7. Most of the things we experience and value in life are subjective and are, therefore, beyond science.

8. Belief in science is an act of faith and is, in itself, a choice made subjectively and personally, not scientifically.

9. Science is limited by time; tomorrow’s research cannot help us today and yesterday’s events cannot be directly observed.

10. Science is limited in space in the infinite sense; there will always remain portions of the universe beyond its reach because of distance to the furthest reaches of intergalactic space.

11. Science is limited in space in the infinitesimal sense; there will always remain portions of the universe beyond its reach within the subspace and the subparticles of atoms.

12. Science is limited in its ability to observe natural living processes because the effect of the observer changes, if not halts, the process.

13. Science is limited by its instruments and apparati of observation. It can only study that which its apparati are designed to observe or detect.

14. Science is limited by experimental error; its results can be no better than the reliability of its data.

15. Science is limited by human bias in the application of the scientific method itself.

16. Science is limited by human bias in the choices of topics upon which the method is applied.

17. Science is limited in its impact upon society in that people, and even professionals, generally do not follow scientific facts unless the facts agree with their feelings and/or preheld beliefs.

18. The scientific method is not the only valid method of inquiry into the nature of things—there are others, and when it comes  to practical inquiry into the subjective, other methods must be used because, in such experiences, science fails.

19. Science (as practiced today) is limited by the a priori assumption that there is no willful, conscious, participating God within the processes studied by science. Hence, God is not a factor to be considered.

<p>CP</p>