The “science” of the Pandemic
During this pandemic, the term “science” has been used “ad nauseam”, that is, has been repeated to exhaustion: “Science, science, science”, “I’m pro-science”, “For from the science, through the science and to the science I guide my decisions and acts” and “I am, therefore, fully right to do so”. It is clear that the intention here is to lead all of us to the idea of decisions based on something unquestionable and infallible, as scientific as law, as the law of gravity.
Groups of “science experts” or famous YouTube scientists, many of them still “beginners” in science, some of them with a minimal or no experience in fighting pandemics, are selected by the establishment and the media to give “scientific aura” for the lockdown and the condemnation of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an ineffective drug; worse, as a deadly poison.
That disastrous apocalyptic simulations from the “Imperial College” – this pompous name that brings us to the idea of a center of excellence of infallible, omnipotent and unquestionable knowledge, an “College of the Empire” – are being used to place everyone at home, and then, to compare data as being the absolute reference of the truth. “We did something and as a result, we reduced those many deaths. Therefore: ‘blessed be the science!’”.
But what kind of “science” is that to which they are appealing? And who, in the name of this “science”, would be allowed to speak? Science (I know that there are controversies, as scientists even debate on its meaning) is “the dispassionate search for the truth about the Universe and life”. But ironically, we seek truths that we don’t even know what those truths would be like, or where they would be found. For this reason, sometimes, ironically, even when scientists find a truth that is indeed true, yet they doubt that they have found it. We literally zigzag in the dark, searching for solutions to our problems. Therefore, we sometimes say that: “eating eggs is bad, it increases cholesterol”; and sometimes: “eggs are good, eat at ease”.
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?
As for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), the inevitable scientific clash between theses is clear when renowned scientists from around the world and in Brazil – such as virologist Paolo Zanotto (with 7,400 scientific citations) and doctors Didier Raoult (with 148,000 citations), Philip M. Carlucci and Vladimir Zelenko – defend its use based on studies and articles, whereas other scientists, also renowned and based on the same or other studies and articles, condemn it.
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.
Really surprised you agree.
“Some defend the “Big Bang” and the theory of evolution, others, including myself, are skeptical of them.”
And you concur?
Abandon science? Why, because everything hasn’t been definitively determined about the coronavirus? In the middle of a pandemic that started only 6 mos ago and the data and understanding is still "evolving”?
Abandon science and what’s left? Trump promoting hydroxychloroquine as a preventive and cure, despite the data to the contrary. Suggesting trying the injection of disinfectant and internal use of bright light?
This is the position of the person that repeatedly claims to rely on facts?
Your comments are always some of my favorites because they question me.
The point is not above PROVEN science, like gravity or the earth revolving around the sun or the freezing point of water under certain conditions.
All those things can be proven irrefutably.
There is plenty of uncertainty in areas that are being sold to us as certainty, including hydroxychloroquine.
Scientists should use the scientific method and be OBJECTIVE, open minded and not let hate or support of a politician bias their views or distort the facts.
pj: Abandon science and what’s left? Trump promoting hydroxychloroquine as a preventive and cure, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Suggesting trying the injection of disinfectant and internal use of bright light?
This is the position of the person that repeatedly claims to rely on facts?
Since you brought it up because your feelings for Trump influence your opinion on those topics, before I formed an opinion, I first did the research to get the scientific facts and THEN had an opinion.
Here, I'll share them with you again.........please tell me what is flawed about the science below? Any time my facts or science end up showing something that supports Trump, it's always "Blinded by the Clown Syndrome" for you.
So tell or show me where my facts or science are wrong below.
and how about the UV treatment of Corona?
Started by GunterK - April 26, 2020, 5 p.m.
metmike from that link: "Trump actually sounds like a frickin genius with his creative ideas after one does the actual research and these MSM know it alls that we trust to interpret our information ............. are actually closed minded, hateful know nothings that can't even do basic science checks before they bash President Trump for brilliant ideas.
Oh, don't mind me. I've only been a scientist for 38+ years and couldn't possibly know as much as the reporters at CNN, the NYT or the Washington Post."
Busting Fake News on Bleach
Started by metmike - April 26, 2020, 12:49 p.m.
On the hydroxychloroquine, there are studies that show taking it BEFORE hand will reduce the severity but I am not BELIEVING those studies, I am just being open minded enough (using the scientific method) to appreciate the legit possibility that those studies MIGHT be right vs believing other limited studies and that show it doesn't help AFTER you have it. And I know with 100% certainty that the risk to taking it is extremely low (contrary to what the MSM has lied to us about) because tens of millions of people have taken it over the last few decades. I would actually seriously consider taking it for its proven anti inflammatory affects, which is why people with Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis take it (I have an autoimmune disease, Ankylosingspodylisis with symptoms similar to Lupus). It's taken by more people for Malaria though.
Science and Medicine are not what you think they are pj.
I saved the best for last.
The current climate optimum being sold to us as a climate crisis with certainty, as Al Gore and others have insisted since 2007 "The science is settled" "The debate is over" . 97% of climate scientists believe in it, so we all should believe everything that we hear and read about it. Wrong-a-roo!
In 1989, when the so called expert scientists were making these predictions about the imminent climate disaster I believed them!
They were wrong and those believing that science were misled, including me. Thankfully, by the year 2000, not only did I have a vast amount of experience observing and analyzing the weather/climate myself, more and more data and studies became available..........and I learned to wear the skeptics hat in realms of unproven science.......especially when only information supporting one side gets told and legit information is buried/hidden or intentionally presented in biased, cherry picking fashion...because they don't want others to know about it.
You have asked me some wonderful questions in some of these discussions below. One of my favorite discussions, was the one on sea levels that you participated in. I have learned a ton of things in answering questions and responding to opinions that disagree with mine.
Being a brilliant, science savy guy, you always have some of the most challenging questions and great points.
Climate Reality discussions-new article 5-2020
Antarctic ice and sea levels/previous warmings-climate scientist corruption-IPCC: April 2019
mm: We've been over this ground with your defense of Trump suggestion to try injecting disinfectant, (which was widely met with astonishment ) before and I see little hope of either of us changing our minds. But the point of my last post was that it sounds like you REALLY prefer relying on what Trump (with no scientific background) comes up with, spur of the moment, based on what someone told him or he read on the internet vs the work of the scientists diligently trying to understand the problem... what works what doesn't.
Call it TDS whatever you want. No doubt about it, I don't like Trump trying to call the shots on this. What continues to baffle me is the fervor with which you do.
"you REALLY prefer relying on what Trump (with no scientific background) comes up with, spur of the moment, based on what someone told him or he read on the internet vs the work of the scientists diligently trying to understand the problem... what works what doesn't."
I NEVER rely on anything that Trump ever says, especially in science.
As a scientist, I am capable of doing my own research, which I do in every case, then I decide independent of anything Trump says.
I always provide my scientific sources and data and indisputable facts with links.
I will continue to ask, when you persist with this belief that my supporting Trump on science is based on a bias for Trump, to show me where my comprehensive evidence from scientific sources to support EVERY position where my science is wrong.
I gave you the links. Why are they wrong.
With regards to Trumps science(or other things)Trump has been in office for 3+ years and has said thousands of really dumb, incorrect things. I cringe when he talks about climate change because he has it right but he will sometimes give the wrong reason and make incorrect statements.......which I would never defend.
Out of the thousands of dumb, incorrect things that he has said(and you know that I have also criticized him numerous times for lying and exaggerating and having dispicable character traits(which it seems I need to keep showing those posts because of convenient memories of those that accuse me/mischaracterize me of being a Trump apologist/defender all the time), he also has said some things that were actually not wrong and at least partially right and he gets mischaracterized unfairly for in headline stories that are WRONG ........and I have the actual (scientific facts) and use them to show that Trump was not wrong in those cases, it must be me being biased because the other side has this false notion that Trump can NEVER be right about anything and anybody that ever believes anything that he says over the MSM is brainwashed with BBTC syndrome.
I can go back again and show you the numerous times that I criticized Trump(the most recent one, I'm sure was earlier in May, including what I just stated pretty clearly above...............to go with my defense of him at other times.
How many times have you or the MSM given him credit for anything?
I think whats happening is that one side views EVERYTHING that he does as being bad or wrong or exaggerated or a lie and when he does something that is good or is the truth..........and even you will have to admit that happens and that the MSM will NEVER acknowledge those times, by definition......that in the minds convinced that everything he does is bad or deceptive, a person that supports anything, at any time that Trump says is also wrong and likely because that person(s) is allowing their bias for supporting Trump to affect their judgment.
I would completely understand you thinking that way of me if I was just loaded with opinions and nothing to back them up, which is the case with almost everybody, everywhere.
If I have an opinion based on speculation, or without substantive proof.........I will tell you flat out its speculative.
Otherwise, you will see numerous links, sources and empirical data to support and prove the statements and every single time, when somebody questions me and I have answered the question and/or shown the data, I ask that they show me what I have wrong or show me data that contradicts anything that I showed in lieu of just accusing me of following Trumps junk science because its Trump.
And it would be great to find out that I am wrong about something(s). One of the worst things imaginable for a good scientist is to have something(s) wrong and to go on indefinitely believing it, confirming it from bias, when the correct information and truth is out there and somebody else can enlighten them.
The longer you believe in something that is wrong, the farther behind you are in the learning process in that field/realm when you get fortunate enough to discover that you have been wrong all this time!
So when you or somebody else disagrees with me, the worst thing that I can be.............is wrong and not recognize it when you or the other person shows me my data/science is wrong. It's not Trumps science either as you see it, which actually makes the point of this main article. People decide to believe the science they want to believe or not to believe for political reasons and/or based on who's saying it or what the reason is. That's politics, not science.
And for you the jury is still out on evolution and the big bang theory?
This is my exact quote:
"On the hydroxychloroquine, there are studies that show taking it BEFORE hand will reduce the severity but I am not BELIEVING those studies, I am just being open minded enough (using the scientific method) to appreciate the legit possibility that those studies MIGHT be right vs believing other limited studies and that show it doesn't help AFTER you have it."
Note me capitalizing the operative words, including BEFORE hand and acknowledging studies that show it likely doesn't work AFTER you have it.
So to bust this, you sent me a link to a study that shows it doesn't work AFTER you have COVID................meaning that you agree with me and 2 links that don't work/don't go to anything.
Would you like me to send half a dozen links that show its been used safely for decades to treat Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis (along with the proven anti inflammatory benefits) along with Malaria to disrupt the life cycle of the parasite?
I'll be glad to do that as well as send studies that show taking it BEFORE hand have shown promising results i outcomes.............and again, I told you that this just makes me OPEN MINDED and not BELIEVING just those studies.
Will you just search the internet to try to find things to back up what you think is busting my statements?
When I did my research, for many hours, which continues, I read EVERY study.......... good, bad, what the uses are for, what the risks are. If it helps or not taking it beforehand........maybe.(and for sure with minimal risk). If it helps or not if taking it after.....not likely.
I certainly don't know everything but am just trying to be an objective/open minded scientist sharing what my research shows...........and President Trumps view has 0 to do with my scientific views.
The only time you object is when the objective science supports anything that Trump states.
Just to be even more clear.
If I was a doctor with patients that already had COVID, I would NOT prescribe this drug to them, based on what we know right now............which is very incomplete data.
If they lived in a high risk area or were old or sick or immune compromised and wanted it as preventative then absolutely yes.
In that same situation if they had an inflammation disorder.....including RA and Lupus, which this drug effectively treats, I would be the one to prescribe it without them asking......depending on the individual situation.
Tell/show me what would be wrong with that please.
I could care less what Trumps position is. I think initially he thought it would treat the disease after you had it and obviously that looks very unlikely and you obviously agree with me on that based on your link.
And thank you for bringing this up pj.
It’s a great topic to discuss. When back in my office I will provide the links to support those statements.
"I could care less what Trumps position is."
Even though he's out there constantly out there spewing his bs (constantly defying and gainsaying the positions and guidelines set forth by the scientists that work under him) using the bully pulpit of the presidency?
And yet you think he's the best man for the job?
Anticipating reply. "Biden would be worse."
I think Biden is a sad choice for the Dems to have made, but especially when it comes to science and facts, I really doubt it.
And you didn't answer about evolution and the big bang theory? I still can't understand why you said "Amen" to the article, which is where we came in.
"And you didn't answer about evolution and the big bang theory? I still can't understand why you said "Amen" to the article, which is where we came in."
metmike: I didn't say that I agree with 100% of everything that he stated, just this main point, as I elaborated with reasoning in the first response:
“science is the culture of debate, of divergence of opinions”.
And this discussion is the perfect example of it. I'm the moderator and have a view on this and other stuff and welcome criticisms with open arms. You are great at challenging me and I learn alot from this, including having to re evaluate the data from both sides again, because I respect pj's view. I try to stick to data/facts in showing my science. Other non scientists might not be as skilled at extracting data and showing links(like Wayne) and using the internet, since this is what I've been doing to self educate about science for 20 years.
Regarding the big bang and evolution. I can give you my opinion on the spot because you asked but unlike the other topics I/we have discussed that I am defending with science and tried to research everything that we do know, , I have not done enough research to even earn the right to have an opinion that I would express here as more knowledgeable than anybody else.
On the big bang theory, that 3rd word is "theory" so its obviously a theory as opposed to the LAW of gravity and photosynthesis and things that we have absolute proof of. We know that Rayleigh Scattering causes the sky to be blue and lots of other cool things based on absolute laws in science that all of science should agree on. On some things, however, there is a level of certainty asserted, that when taught, implies more certainty than exists. I don't know what the mainstream level of certainty is for the big bang theory or what your belief is.........but would be delighted to here it to learn more about something you know, probably an order of magnitude or greater, more than me about.
On evolution. This one is fascinating. I have met many intelligent people who still believe the bibles version of creation literally and it blows me away. This is probably the origin of people questioning the theory of evolution. Evolution is settled science with absolute certainty. Religious faiths are usually based on beliefs that can't be proven. Science is based on evidence and data of things that can be proven and observed with certainty. They often have things in common however. We can't observe the big bang theory and there is a bit of "faith" in the speculation there for instance but you can tell me more.
I was raised a Catholic and believe in several tenants of the theory of Intelligent Design, probably because my mind was open to accept it. I will readily tell you that this has created to what appears to be a bias in me when it comes to certain interpretations of our existence but none that conflict with the same science that you or Atheists believe.
The reason that I say "appears to be a bias" is that, those who insist that all beliefs in religion are bunk, to me are the closed minded ones. But I get that. One can present a great argument that there is no 100% scientific proof of many things.........especially God. I can't prove it and wouldn't waste my time trying to convince somebody that thinks its bunk for why I think the theory of Intelligent Design holds water.
But my mind is OPEN, in a great part because of me being raised(brainwashed with religion) with religion. I choose to have a mind, that despite being driven entirely by science, that maintains enough objectivity on the unknown to seriously consider the theory of intelligent design............which of course means an intelligent creator.
If somebody can show facts to dispute that, I will take it into consideration. If somebody creates life out of non life in the laboratory, then I will dial that in to my understanding. I will gladly start another thread with the theory of intelligent design.
But again, evolution is proven science and I'm guessing that you and me agree on almost all of it. People who use religion to not believe in it are just wrong.
Debating religion is pointless because its faith, not science. Debating the big bang theory may not be pointless but it sure doesn't look like the absolute proof is going to show up during our life time.
Debating treatment for heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, COVID-19, cancer and other diseases from evolving medicine and science makes sense. Debating climate change makes sense from a scientific point of view. Its only the politics of one side that wants to completely shut down the debate. This fact is probably why the article I started this thread with was posted at WUWT, the world's number 1 site for climate crisis skeptics.
And there are some people there that don't believe in the greenhouse gas theory and that humans are causing any warming. They are probably MORE wrong about the causes of the warming than the opposite side. As far as the affects on life, anybody that thinks that its not a crisis is closer to the truth.
So tell me your views on the big bang, theory, evolution and intelligent design please.
You obviously don't believe me but my views in science are totally independent of what Trump thinks or says.
On "Anything is better than Biden" response, I would not vote for Trump for any other reason than I had before I found out who he was running against.
I have several reasons to NOT vote for Trump based on his character flaws,lack of credibility, poor communication skills and so on. But his agenda represents truth. I would rather have a sheethead with common sense policies based on sound science and energy and economic principles than a nice guy who I would love to have as a friend but has those same key issues exactly wrong.
Those key issues are everything to the future of our country. I'll have you know that Trumps tax cuts, because of the change in itemizing, cost my wife and I over $3,000/year in higher Fed taxes. Maybe closer to 4K. It just so happens that we itemized a massive amount and the new law takes the benefits of almost all of that away.
Better for the vast majority of people. MUCH worse for us.
I am not blind to some big negatives to him being the president, including ones that cost us a bunch of money personally.
So even a senile, previously corrupt Joe Biden beats out Donald Trump in everything but agenda. Even if he did what this lady accuses of him 3 decades ago, he still beats out Trump on everything but agenda for me.
The contrast in agenda is so overwhelming that I have to overlook my great dislike for this mean president and his make up stuff and rants. I am constantly skeptical of EVERYTHING that he says, until I verify it. As it turns out, what I have discovered is that sometimes, he is really right about some very important things.
Do you think that he has anything right?
mm: "Do you think that he has anything right?"
Trying to curtail illegal immigration. Except the way he vilified Mexicans and the nonsense about Mexico paying for the wall.
Trying to reduce Chinese theft of US intellectual property. Except the way he went about it contributed to getting us into a big tariff war.
mm: “So tell me your views on the big bang, theory, evolution and intelligent design please.”
The Big Bang. Of course I don’t understand the math. But so many respected mathematicians/physicists say it explains extremely well everything that seems to have happened (the background radiation, the expansion in the universe, the way very distant/very old stars and galaxies appear, black holes etc), ever since an infinitesimal fraction a second after the “big bang”, that even though I don’t find it totally intuitively satisfying, I buy it.
Evolution. One of the pillars of modern science. Proven about as well as anything non-mathematical can be.
Intelligent Design. A lame attempt to rationalize hanging on to mythical beliefs that should have faded away a long time ago as science progressed.
Big Bang theory and evolution are good topics to start a new thread as well as intelligent design.
Thanks for the ideas!
The best thing about it, is that in gathering information, I will learn a few things!
I'm not suggesting that this proves anything about hydroxychloroquine....just that it supports my position of being open minded and aware that science on this and many other things is anything but settled............and I could care less what Trump's position might be.
"The Lancet study gained so much attention because it went further than other observational studies that had similarly found the drugs were not associated with improved outcomes for patients. The study, which was purportedly based on patient data from 671 hospitals on six continents, reported the drugs also corresponded to higher mortality.
The findings led to the pause of some global clinical trials studying hydroxychloroquine so researchers could check for any safety concerns. Outside experts, however, quickly raised concerns after noticing inconsistencies in the data. They asked the company that compiled and analyzed the data, known as Surgisphere, to explain how it sourced its data.
As scrutiny grew, the authors on the paper not affiliated with Surgisphere called for an independent audit. In their statement Thursday, they said that Surgisphere was not cooperating with the independent reviewers and would not provide the data.
“As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process,” the researchers wrote.
"Outside experts have raised similar concerns about another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, from many of the same researchers based on Surgisphere data that looked at the safety of blood pressure medications in patients with Covid-19. Earlier this week, the New England Journal issued an “expression of concern” about the paper, and an independent review of that has also been launched."
Absolutely they are safe for those people who get proven benefits and safe for almost everybody else too that might not get benefits. That is proven from decades of use by hundreds of millions? of people.
The MSM trying to convince us that Trump pushing it was threatening peoples health and lives is complete BS.
Turns out that this drug DOES help quite a bit in the treatment of COVID and can save, potentially up to thousands of lives in the next year, now that we finally have a reliable, peer reviewed study with results to trust.
Always good to stay open minded about this science and all science(other things too).
Trump-touted COVID-19 drug hydroxychloroquine works