If you were to tell people that you don’t believe all the hype about the “novel coronavirus” you might be asked, “Don’t you believe in science?” Now, that is a tough one to answer on a single breath, but, you could point out that most science today is junk science and that many scientists admit it.
Explorable.com defines Junk Science:
“It is a type of science often practiced when politics and business become involved in research. Generally, it involves the cynical cherry picking of data and results to suit a particular agenda.”
They provide this example of junk science relating to Health Scares:
“This is an extremely cynical way of making money. Many of the so-called ‘findings’ of research are paid for by companies with a conflicting interest. Most such research is accompanied by a press release, which is circulated to the media. This works along saturation principle; if enough people see it in the press, it will become accepted as truth.”
They explain how the media can be used to propagate junk science:
“Any research announced in the media that uses ‘might,’ ‘possibly,’ and ‘could,’ is often speculation rather than scientific fact.”
Covid-19 science fits the Junk Science model perfectly:
- Politics and business are tightly involved with Covid science. The drug companies are profiting from research grants and spending from the government and have positioned themselves to be free from liability.
- In lieu of real science, there has been, instead, science-by-press-conference. Dr. Fauci plays the role of scientist in many of these press conferences, though his actual function is more like public relations.
- The computer models were used to predict that there might be as many as 2.2 million deaths in the USA; there could be a half a million deaths in the UK. Besides being speculation – which a computer model is by definition – it is also fear-mongering.
There is actually very little real science to support the need for lock downs or Covid vaccines. There has never even been proof that people are getting sick from a new virus. The PCR test is the basis of all such claims and it doesn’t look for a virus, just for surrogate markers (indiret evidence) in the form of RNA sequences that have never been properly linked to a virus.
The editors of prestigious medical journals admit that much of what is printed in those esteemed journals is, at the very least, highly questionable.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
– Marcia Angell, MD
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
– Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet
If medical journals are not to be trusted, then how much less trust should be placed in the mainstream media? And, when you consider that drug companies spend billions on advertising, and that, therefor, media companies are beholden to them, how much less trust then?
The author of Not Even Trying: The Corruption of Real Science makes a strong case that what today passes for “science” is not what we traditionally have called science:
Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth – no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
– Bruce G Charlton
Sources:
Definition of Junk Science by Explorable.com:
Skeptical of medical science reports?
Not even trying: the corruption of real science
Further Reading:
Not Even Trying: The Corruption of Real Science
Related Topics:
The “Unscientific” Scientific American
The Ideological Corruption of Science
World Class Journalist Spills the Beans & Admits Mainstream Media is Completely Fake