# THE Science Community
For starters - THE Science is an oxymoron. There's no THE science - well there is - we're living with it - but *real* science doesn't work like that. There's information gathered, analysed, reported - to support **a** (not THE) hypothesis - amongst a range of other hypotheses. The spirit of science - is to say: *here's what i've come up with - here's my reasoning - prove me wrong - I welcome the scrutiny*.
Not: yell at/ban anyone asking questions. What's up with that?
The media kept telling us: *(T)he*[ *vast majority of scientists*](https://theconversation.com/heres-how-scientists-know-the-coronavirus-came-from-bats-and-wasnt-made-in-a-lab-141850)* who have studied the virus agree that it evolved naturally (*and are tired of fighting) *conspiracy theories that have ****plagued*** *attempts to keep people ****informed*** *during the pandemic* (such as)* .. the idea that the coronavirus was created in a laboratory.*
That tells me that *the vast majority of scientists*@universities/institutions are: complicit.
[*Nature*](https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985) even drops the *vast majority *qualifier saying:
*Scientists believe* - those two words sum up everything about how we got into this mess.
*Scientists *- not *some *scientists, not *most*, but ***scientists*** *- *as a species - *believing *- same as a religion - then vilifying anyone questioning their beliefs.
This from:* Nature’s Editors. THE Science's* official mouthpiece
On one hand *Nature *waffles on about the sovereign rightness of their empirical agnosticism - on the other hand:
- [ *Now i’m a Believer!*](https://youtu.be/a3bI7kbVBwM?t=84)* -*
What is it you believe again?
*that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus *
Not sure if that’s simply bad English or a cunningly left back-door exit for later. Humans *are *animals. *See - we never ruled that out - we were right all along!*
Even some scientists who questioned the origin of Covid fell into this trap:
*The only way of proving the true origin is through science - everyone else needs to stand back - let us take up the fight - don’t muddy our waters with your unscientific speculations.* (I'm paraphrasing someone here)
Aitologically speaking, I lean towards the conclusion that that’s the same wrong-headed empiricist-thinking that caused Covid.
I know they *mean well* - scientific input *is* valuable - I'm not anti-science - but scientists - or anyone - segregating the truth into their closed-society domain ... please don’t do that - it does *more harm than good*.
The fatal flaw with Empiricism is *believing *you are right. That *only you* have the solution.
Then insisting everyone else *believes *you - unquestioningly.
That’s a guaranteed recipe for *getting it wrong*. It’s also a dangerous breeding ground for tyrannical thought - as we’ve seen.
Scientists - for or against: Present your info - argue your case - but don’t ask us to *believe you!*
Science is* part of* the answer - empiricism has something to contribute - but be humble enough to recognize that it was this same culture that caused then covered-up Covid - with it’s consequential War-on-Freedom. It cannot be brushed over - it needs fundamental deconstruction/reform.
Empiricists are great at looking at trees - in microscopic detail - not noted for transcending that mindset - to see the forest. The *Shakespearean tragedy* is they think they can - but they can’t. Then the fallout from that hubris.
That’s where we need our discarded humanities thinkers\* back in the band - involved in decisions that require forest-seeing skills. Or normal people with common sense will do fine.
(\*Australia's government recently raised fees for[ History and Philosophy students by 113%](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200728-why-australia-is-charging-more-to-study-history) - to discourage them - because, they *believe*, such knowledge does not have economic value in today's society.)
Why science is not the answer to a problem caused by science:
Premise: Modern Science (Empiricism), by its own definition, involves an immense amount of minutiae.
Including unrevealed bits of minutiae, which, in turn, provide wiggle room for counter arguments/misinformation tactics - that the mainstream science community will exploit - like their lives depend on it - which they do.
For example: Worobey - Oxford chums from the 90’s with Farrar, Gao, Eddie, Rambaut - pops up for a rear-guard action with his Dec *Patient-Zero* silliness splashed across all media like it was the last nail-in-the-coffin of the lab-leakers. The goal is not to present truth - it's, paradoxically, purely about muddying the waters. It works great - if you do it long enough. People still think SARS came from civets.
Then there’s the matter of* the holy grail* for some of the lab-leak-scientists. If you’re going the scientific hard-data route, you’re racing to find what, exactly?
An exact genetic match on a WIV database - which was taken offline.
All on-site samples have been destroyed.
That shit’s not gonna magically reappear. The *smoking gun* has long since gone up in smoke.
If that's your definition of proof you're playing into the hands of those who seek to cover it up - they can forever say it remains unresolved.
Fighting the might of the science community on their own turf/terms, is to take on an empire that has never lost a match when it comes to dragging origins into a *muddled memory*.
same as[ SARS](http://formosahut.com/forum/index.php?id=2861)
same as[ MERS](http://formosahut.com/forum/index.php?mode=entry&id=2870)
same as[ HIV](https://www.abc.net.au/health/aids2001/origins.htm)
same as[ Ebola](https://www.abebooks.com/Ebola-Outbreak-West-Africa-Why-Paperback/20463189081/bdhttps://dulandrift.formosahut.com/books/the-covid-atrocity/chapter/ebola-vizions)-14 outbreak - Constantine Nana wrote a book on it in 2016 - it’s persuasive.)
same as Anthrax
Meanwhile the poor-old *normal person* is told to wait outside patiently for an answer that’s never coming - not before we’re engulfed by the next world drama, anyway.
To borrow Andersen/Rambaut/Holmes’s phrase, there’s a:
* ****much simpler and more cost-effective way***
*
deduction -
*
Scientists will say: *Yes, but it’s not real science*.
Sure it is. It’s logic - which is philosophy - which is the original science. Done properly, there’s no wiggle-room.
Here’s an easy example:
1. Scientific discussions relating to the Feb 1 Teleconf were hidden from view (redacted)\*
2. Therefore the participants are hiding something
3. All Feb 1 Teleconferencers are leading anti-lab-leak advocates
4. Therefore; they’re ***not*** hiding information that supports their case
5. Therefore; they *are *hiding information that potentially incriminates them
6. Therefore; they are *suspects*
7. Therefore; #dack-the-redactions - interview the *suspects*. Give them lie detectors - apply interrogative pressure - one of them will spill.
8. Case solved.
(\*some discussions have been released after this was written - they do incriminate the [Feb 1 Teleconferencers](https://dulandrift.formosahut.com/books/the-covid-atrocity/page/feb-1-teleconference) big-time - exactly as hypothesized - but still no interrogation)
So simple, right? Don’t have to be a scientist to understand it - or prosecute it.
But the real beauty is:
* it’s simple to ****disprove***
No decades-long investigation presided over by a closed-society. All you gotta do is unredact the emails relating to the Feb 1 Teleconference - we could know the origin - either way - *natural *or *not *- as soon as this afternoon.
These are not private sextings from sports stars that the media Hungergames for/publishes - they’re *the *scientific decision-making details of public-funded experts who helmed the world’s response to Covid. The biggest global catastrophe since WW2. That war was fought to stop fascism. The Covid Response amounts to a war on freedom. We have a right to know the root cause.
*Ohr, no, we couldn't do that because ...you know … uhmm … these are complicated matters...uhm.. I could explain it ...but ...you know … you wouldn’t understand. *
We’re not asking you to explain - we’re asking you to unredact the science discussion.
*Uhm… we are committed to being*[ *as transparent as we can be*](https://nihrecord.nih.gov/2019/08/23/farrar-offers-3-part-prescription-global-health)*, in principle - but people need to understand that’s not the way it works in the science world. *(not real quote, except for Farrar's *as transparent as we can be*)
Exactly, that’s why we need *the *scientists to dial down their domination tendencies - let logic have a go. Really, it’s *not *complicated.