Never underestimate the ability of the human brain to warp and twist reality.
2023-04-21. Emphasis added.
In a recent interview, famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson was challenged on his scientific views about COVID-19 and he said “I’m only interested in consensus” – words that would have Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei rolling in their graves.
The appeal to “scientific consensus” is fraught with problems, just like “The science is settled” and “Trust the science” and other authoritarian tropes that have dominated the pandemic.
A widely accepted theory, such as the theory of evolution, depends on a consensus being reached among the scientific community, but it must be achieved without censorship or reprisal.
As Aaron Kheriaty, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, recently said:
Science is an ongoing search for truth & such truth has little to do with consensus. Every major scientific advance involves challenges to a consensus. Those who defend scientific consensus rather than specific experimental findings are not defending science but partisanship.
Consensus by Censorship
The origin of COVID is a classic example. Twenty-seven scientists published a letter in the Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories” that suggested the virus did not have a natural origin. Dissenting views were censored on social media and labelled “misinformation.”
The Great Barrington Declaration is another example. Three eminent professors from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford Universities, argued against lockdowns, which they said would disproportionately harm the underprivileged.
But former NIH director Francis Collins dismissed them as “fringe epidemiologists” asking Anthony Fauci for “a quick and devastating take down” of the declaration.
Scientific consensus has become a manufactured construct, dictated by politics and power.
The recent release of the ‘Twitter Files’ reveals how government agencies, Big Tech, media, and academia colluded in an effort to police online content, and censor dissenting voices to create a false perception of consensus.
One egregious example was Stanford University’s Virality Project that brought together elite academia, experts in artificial intelligence, and social media companies to censor “true” stories of vaccine injuries under the guise of fighting disinformation.
I think Michael Crichton – physician, producer, and writer – explained it best when he gave a lecture on science, politics, and consensus in 2003;
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Consensus is the business of politics….The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
WIND: the thing we call “science” is a turd sausage.
The powers that suppressed/censored/etc ought to all be in prison forever, because they probably caused 10 million deaths by their abuse of power.
with no accountability or justice forthcoming
The World Health Organization estimates that (worldwide) there have been 763,740,140 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,908,554 deaths as of April 19, 2023. This does not include additional components of the excess mortality during the COVIDcrisis being documented by many in western nations, for which scientists and the various governments seems to not know what the causative agent is and no government seems to want to investigate… Although most will agree privately that these deaths are also related to COVID-19 “public health” policies in some way or another. These include deaths from lockdowns (famine, suicide, violence, alcohol and drug abuse), long COVID, vaccine deaths, lack of medical care for cancer and other diseases, etc. All told, the estimate for total deaths from the COVID crisis is probably around ten million people or more. Ten million people is a very big number. It is hard to even fathom.
WIND: if it was really “only” 5 million killed by idiotic pandemic policies (along with ongoing permanent damage), is that OK? The net harm calculation for any honest person should be obvious.