“Trust the Science” has been the mantra spouted by the media and authorities globally since the COVID-19 pandemic began, but have phrases like this and “believe in science” been used more as a propaganda tool to persuade and manipulate the masses into compliance than actually been backed by scientific evidence, enquiry or open debate?
Dr Anthony Fauci seems to consider himself to be “The Science”, as he stated “an attack on me is an attack on science”. Yet “The Science” has changed his mind through-out the pandemic! Is the use of the word “science” and the flip-flop of policy been used to confuse or to corral the masses? “Advice” looks more and more like control directives than health directives.
- “Trust the Science” compilation – WATCH
- Fauci Flip Flops – WATCH, READ, BROWNSTONE
- The Great Pandemic Flip Flop – EXCERPT, WATCH
- “When Fauci killed science” – Laura Ingraham – WATCH
“Science” or “Scientism” [pseudo-science]?
Patrick Wood has enlightened me to an ideology or possibly a religion called “Scientism” which he has traced back to the early 1800’s. Patrick shares that supporters of Scientism believe “there is only one source of truth about the universe and the nature of man”, and there is no consideration for ethics or philosophy!
Is this “belief system” taking over the world without our knowing?
If you question “the science”, no matter how expert you are, you get vilified and censored.
Patrick Wood shares his knowledge of Technocracy and Transhumanism and the glue that holds them together called “Scientism” – WATCH
The mind of a Technocrat and a Transhumanist
are both rooted in Scientism
Scientism is the idea that science is the ultimate path to knowledge and wisdom. The only sure path, and that the spiritual realm is a mirage. They believe every problem has a scientific solution. But as Patrick points out, can you “prove” love, emotions, dreams etc.?
True “Science” explores the natural world using the “scientific method” of repeated experimentation and validation.
“Scientism” is a speculative, metaphysical world view about the nature and reality of the universe and man’s relation to it.
This illustrates the the scientific method vs scientism’s narrow focused consensus model:
Think of pseudo-science as “politicised science”
September 27, 2022 – Dr Simon Substack: Science vs Pseudoscience- How scientific principles are carried on ad absurdum – A MUST READ
- “Since Jan 2020, we have been engaged in a great new theory that has again drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities worldwide.”…history repeating it self.
The illusion of Evidence Based Medicine!
Dr John Campbell goes through an paper written in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) called “The illusion of evidence based medicine” that distills down the contamination of science in medicine, but could likely be applied to other industries also. From a medicines stand point this “contamination” began about HERE
Articles in reverse chronological order
2023
June 21, 2023 – Karl Kanthak on Substack: Is this why Dr. Hotez is reluctant to debate? – A layperson’s video analysis of one of Dr. Hotez’s most distributed papers, and commentary on the RFK, Jr. v Hotez situation – READ, Dr Jack – COMMENT (re debate CONTEXT), WATCH,
[Playbook: Credentialed scientists claims i.e. “antivaccine hotspot”- the media spins the headlines to promote an agenda – they don’t tell you the “hotspot” is manipulated representation of data]
- “I discovered the same statistical manipulation that permeates all public health messaging regarding vaccines, exemptions, efficacy, safety, infection incidence, inapplicable populations, etc.
- Percentage measurement when it is numerically insignificant.
- Numerical measurement when it is statistically insignificant.
2022
November 19, 2022 – Brownstone Institute: Technocracy And Totalitarianism: The Rise Of The Biomedical Security State by Aaron Kheriaty – READ, CREDIT What is science vs scientism:
Science:
Scientism:
September 25, 2022 – Dr Simon substack: How Scientific Fraud took the World Hostage – Drosten’s test is the pest. – A look at the scientific publication peer review process – READ
September 20, 2022 – World Economic Forum: Sustainable Development Impact Meetings 2022 – Tackling Disinformation [aka “controlling the narrative”] – Disclose TV – GETTR, EXCERPT, FULL, CREDIT, ARTICLE
- WEF sponsors Sustainable Development Impact meetings 2022 – UN Secretary [Melissa Fleming] for Global Comms says they [the UN] “own the science” on “climate change,” and opposing viewpoints have now been pushed down in search results through their partnership with Google
- UN & WEF declare “We own the Science” & admit to censoring info on Google & Social Media that destroys the Official Narrative – ARTICLE
September 9, 2022 – Daily Wire: $500,000 National Science Foundation Grant Produced Paper Saying Science Is Racist – READ
- NSF grant No. 1760761 gave $500,000 to Seattle Pacific University for “understanding centrality and marginalization in undergraduate physics teaching and learning” who produced “a 22-page “study” that used Critical Race Theory to argue that physics was racist, in part because it rewards students for getting the right answer and uses whiteboards.”
July 14, 2022 – The Free Press: U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren’t ‘Following the Science,’ Officials Say – ‘People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.’ – by Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H. Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD – READ
2019
December 15, 2019 – AEI: Michael Crichton Explains Why There Is ‘no Such Thing as Consensus Science’ – READ – google the term “global warming consensus”
- What “Michael Crichton had to say about “scientific consensus” back in 2003 when he gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming””
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks”…the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.…In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.”
“Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.“
Michael Crichton 2003
