THE Science Community

The media kept telling us: (T)he vast majority of scientists 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 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!

On one hand Nature waffles on about the sovereign rightness of their empirical agnosticism - on the other hand:

 -    Now i’m a Believer!   -

What do you believe?

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. 

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 - 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 game 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 recognize that it was this same culture that caused then covered-up Covid - with it’s War-on-Freedom consequences . 

Empiricists are great at looking at trees - in microscopic detail - not noted for transcending that mindset - to see the forest. The tragedy is they think they can - but they can’t.

That’s where we need our downgraded humanities thinkers involved. Or normal people with common sense will do fine.

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 rest of the 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 - got his Dec Patient-Zero silliness splashed across all media like it was the last nail-in-the-coffin of the lab-leakers. 

Then there’s the matter of the holy grail - 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. 

Meanwhile, bravely fighting the might of the science community on their own turf/terms - where they’ve never lost a match when it comes to dragging origins into a muddled memory

same as SARS  

same as MERS  

same as HIV 

same as Ebola (13-14 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. Case solved.

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 like the media Hungergames for - 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.

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, in principle - but people need to understand that’s not the way it works in the science world. 

Exactly, that’s why we need the scientists to dial down their domination tendencies - let logic have a go. Really, it’s not complicated.