The Limits of Science

[thrulookingglass]

I can cull data to fit my SENTIMENTS too:

"Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends fabric masks for the general public. The CDC says that N95 masks should be reserved for health care providers.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends medical masks for health care workers as well as for anyone who has or may have COVID-19 or who is caring for someone who has or may have COVID-19.

The WHO also recommends medical masks for individuals who are at a higher risk of becoming seriously ill with COVID-19, such as people in their 60s and older, and people of any age with significant health problems." - Mayo Clinic

"When you wear a mask, you protect others as well as yourself. Masks work best when everyone wears one." - CDC apparently contradicting itself

It strikes me as incredulously stupid to shirk and cough off all the violent wars, racisms, sexism, outrageously immoral monetary system, slavery, imperialism, cronyism, nepotism and yet be infuriated when asked to temporarily wear a mask with the slight chance it might save someone's life.

What WE do and do not stand for greatly affects the quality of our lives. Jumping on some Faux News bandwagon of "we don't need no stinking masks" strikes me as infantile. Of all the troubles in life, put it on and shut up! There are worse things than incidentally preventing someone from getting deathly ill.

[Karmamatterz]

It strikes me as incredulously stupid to shirk and cough off all the violent wars, racisms, sexism, outrageously immoral monetary system, slavery, imperialism, cronyism, nepotism and yet be infuriated when asked to temporarily wear a mask with the slight chance it might save someone's life.

Yup, I'll trade whatever speculation you want, including the threat of killing my grandma. Oh wait, she's already dead so I can't kill her by not wearing a mask. For fucks sakes.

Just because some of us are more vocal and outspoken about the mask bullshit doesn't mean we're not ALSO disgusted, infuriated, and or frustrated about some of the other things you mentioned.

I happen to like to smile, a lot. I enjoy the human connection of smiling at other humans and seeing their face, uncovered.

You're welcome to as much incredulous feelings that you can muster to criticize those who are opposed to this mask nonsense. In addition to the HUMAN aspect of being a HUMAN, I despise the jackass idiots, like the governor of Ohio who is a total control freak dipshit that is a lower order leader in the Cult of Covid. Add to that other governors, bureaucrats and spineless county health officials who have decided to fall in line rather than question the bad data and the narratives. These people seek to control us for bad reasons. I won't stand for it. The lies being perpetuated are an assault on our rational thought as human beings.

What WE do and do not stand for greatly affects the quality of our lives. Jumping on some Faux News bandwagon of "we don't need no stinking masks" strikes me as infantile. Of all the troubles in life, put it on and shut up! There are worse things than incidentally preventing someone from getting deathly ill.

My God, do you seriously think that everyone who opposes the Cult of Covid watches Fox News? Or any of the M5M? WTF? Talk about infantile.

Do you have any clue how all the networks are bought and paid for with money from big pharma? Please, do some research on where big pharma spends their TV dollars. The QUALITY of our lives has changed, in a bad way. I won't buy the baloney that wearing a mask is going to save anybody's life. Keep on drinking the Fool Aid! Gulp it down and feel it wash over your amygdala as it refreshes you with another dose of fear.

Of all the troubles.....do you know anyone who lost their job or business due to the lockdowns? Anyone in your family attempt to commit suicide? How about just general good old fashioned depression?

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Echo the above sentiments.

How do the 'courteous' mask wearers explain this?

CDC: 85% of COVID-19 patients report ‘always’ or ‘often’ wearing masks

Recently published data from a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that 70.6% of COVID-19-positive patients report “always” wearing a mask, 14.4% report “often” wearing a mask, and 3.9% report “never” wearing a mask (See Table: Reported use of cloth face covering or mask 14 days before illness onset.)

https://www.ormanager.com/briefs/cdc-85 ... ing-masks/


Also, all of you neglecting to cover YOUR EYES are AT RISK! The virus can enter through THE EYES AS WELL.

To be sure, infectious diseases, in general, can be transmitted through various routes, the eyes included. When a person who is infected coughs, sneezes or talks, the virus can travel in tiny particles from their mouth or nose into another person's face. “These droplets are most likely to be inhaled through your nose or mouth, but they can also enter the body through the eyes,” says Viral Juthani, M.D., assistant professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

And yet, why haven't cases skyrocketed in classrooms? Why, in school districts with mask OPTIONAL directives, have cases not only remained flat, but have in certain instances been LOWER than schools with mask mandates? Keep in mind NONE of these indoor settings have requirements for goggles or masks that cover the entire face.

Here is the mask you'd need to wear, those of you in TERROR of the ELEMENTS, or foolish enough to believe a cloth covering will "save" others:



Go ahead, do your part for society and make sure to wear the proper head gear, if you are so certain in your beliefs.

[stickdog99]

I can cull data to fit my SENTIMENTS too:

"Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends fabric masks for the general public. The CDC says that N95 masks should be reserved for health care providers.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends medical masks for health care workers as well as for anyone who has or may have COVID-19 or who is caring for someone who has or may have COVID-19.

The WHO also recommends medical masks for individuals who are at a higher risk of becoming seriously ill with COVID-19, such as people in their 60s and older, and people of any age with significant health problems." - Mayo Clinic

"When you wear a mask, you protect others as well as yourself. Masks work best when everyone wears one." - CDC apparently contradicting itself

It strikes me as incredulously stupid to shirk and cough off all the violent wars, racisms, sexism, outrageously immoral monetary system, slavery, imperialism, cronyism, nepotism and yet be infuriated when asked to temporarily wear a mask with the slight chance it might save someone's life.

What WE do and do not stand for greatly affects the quality of our lives. Jumping on some Faux News bandwagon of "we don't need no stinking masks" strikes me as infantile. Of all the troubles in life, put it on and shut up! There are worse things than incidentally preventing someone from getting deathly ill.

I admit that what you just typed was basically my exact take on the supposed mask mandate controversy for months.

Then I made the mistake of looking into the question more deeply. In particular, I tried to find the scientific evidence that I felt must exist to back the "common sense" assertion that masks prevent the spread of respiratory illnesses. In dong so, I was dumbstruck to find that even for the surgical masks that doctors are forced to wear, there is no available scientific evidence that these masks have a statistically significant effect on the reduction of the transmission of respiratory disease.

https://www.facebook.com/revenuecameras ... 097350153/

Arthur Firstenberg on facial masks.

As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”

I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

• Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”

• Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”

• Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.

• In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.

• A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”

• Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”

• Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.

• Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”

• Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.

• Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.

• Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.

• Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”

• Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”

• Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes -- two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.

“We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,” writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.

Considering that the recent declarations you cited concerning the supposed effectiveness of masks are all about-faces from previous recommendations based on totally non-existent "new information" (at least in terms of any scientific evidence that I can find), color me less than impressed.

However, if you can cite any actual well-designed scientific studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of masks in reducing the transmission of respiratory diseases, I would love to read them! Thanks!

[Belligerent Savant]

.
In addition to Stickdog's comments above, typing this:

I can cull data to fit my SENTIMENTS too:

[insert CDC recommendations lacking in clinical real world studies, relying almost entirely on modeled scenarios]

..wholly ignores the REAL WORLD examples provided in the charts I shared in the prior page. What I offered is NOT 'guidance', but raw data extracted from real places -- states, counties -- that have lifted mask mandates earlier this year. NO SPIKES OCCURRED. To the contrary, Cases and Hospitalizations DROPPED. This is not "sentiment". This is FACT.

Keep in mind there's been NO debate, open forum discussion or voting process at local, State or National levels prior to the implementation of these measures. To date, there's been zero ability for the People to make their own informed decisions on many of these measures (with a few exceptions at local school districts by determined parents aiming to lift school mask requirements, but these scenarios only succeeded in States with already-lifted State mask mandates), other than partaking in acts of civil or non-civil disobedience, of course. Those of you that claim to subscribe to a 'democracy' are either liars or in deep denial.

The CDC is an organization* consisting of unelected, unaccountable functionaries doling out recommendations that have real-life consequences. It’s crucial for us to think critically about the near and long-term consequences of these measures, and to soberly assess the perceived vs. actual risks.

---------------------
*funded in part by private entities: "In addition to Congressional Appropriations, CDC receives approximately $12 million in global funding through foundations and other donors including the Bloomberg Family Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the CDC Foundation."
https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/pdf/gl ... unding.pdf
----------------------

Many of these talking points are dictated not by science-based decisions, but by political/bureaucratic decisions. Boundaries drawn on a map have more impact on implementation of policy than assessment of actual harm, particularly for those at minimal risk.

We've endured blatant attempts to normalize and perpetuate unprecedented, and harmful, measures that were reported to be temporary. These measures should never be considered ‘normal’. The available science and real-world data show that masks play no statistically significant role in curbing spread. Moreover, extensive mask use causes both physiological and psychological harm, in addition to impairing cognitive learning, especially in younger children.

How many of you will downplay your complicity to all of this years from now?

[stickdog99]

I just dropped in to see what condition my conditioning was in.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

I saw the below statement/question raised here at least once, in a self-assured manner, as a 'smoking gun' call out of the foolishness among the 'anti-mask' contingent.

‘If masks don’t work, why do surgeons wear them?’


Written by Jim Meehan MD, Surgeon

A response to people who use the classic fallacious argument, “Well, if masks don’t work, then why do surgeons wear them?”

I’m a surgeon that has performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. However, that fact alone doesn’t really qualify me as an expert on the matter. More importantly, I am a former editor of a medical journal.

I know how to read the medical literature, distinguish good science from bad, and fact from fiction. Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science.

Since the beginning of the pandemic I’ve read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence.

First, let’s be clear. The premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that “masks must work to prevent viral transmission” is a logical fallacy that I would classify as an argument of false equivalence, or comparing “apples to oranges.”

Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot “socially distance” from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask).

The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics.

The failure of the scientific literature to support medical masks for influenza and all other viruses, is also why Fauci, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, WHO, and pretty much every infectious disease expert stated that wearing masks won’t prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2. Although the public health “authorities” flipped, flopped, and later changed their recommendations, the science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported the wearing of masks in public. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirms that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask.

Another area of “false equivalence” has to do with the environment in which the masks are worn. The environments in which surgeons wear masks minimize the adverse effects surgical masks have on their wearers.

Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air. These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff. And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate the negative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide re-breathing) of surgical masks on surgeon physiology and performance.

Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous about maintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion. We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative effects. Surgeons NEVER re-use surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks.

The public is being told to wear masks for which they have not been trained in the proper techniques. As a result, they are mishandling, frequently touching, and constantly reusing masks in a way that increase contamination and are more likely than not to increase transmission of disease.

Just go watch people at the grocery story or Walmart and tell me what you think about the effectiveness of masks in the community.

If you can’t help but believe and trust the weak retrospective observational studies and confused public health “authorities” lying to you about the benefits and completely ignoring the risks of medical masks, then you should at least reject the illogical anti-science recommendation to block only 2 of the 3 ports of entry for viral diseases. Masks only cover the mouth and nose. They do not protect the eyes.

Jim Meehan MD is a physician, accomplished leader, and entrepreneur who provides innovative science and solutions that adhere to open, honest, transparent, and uncompromisingly patient-centered principles. He transforms raw data and scientific research into easy to understand information that educates, informs, and motivates changes in behavior to lead to improved health and wellness. Dr. Meehan believes in educating patients to be scientists of their own health.

https://principia-scientific.com/surgeo ... wear-them/

[conniption]

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
(embedded links)

COVID19 – the end of scientific discussion?

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
24th May 2021

534 Replies

I haven’t written a blog for a while. Instead, I have been sorting out two complaints about my blog made to the General Medical Council. Also, a complaint from NHS England, and two irate phone calls from other doctors, informing me I shouldn’t make any negative comments about vaccines.

For those in other countries, who don’t know about such things, doctors in the UK are ruled by many different organisations, all of whom feel able to make judgement and hand down various sanctions. The deadliest of them, the ‘Spanish Inquisition’ if you like, is the General Medical Council (GMC) who can strike you off the medical register and stop you working as a doctor. They have great power, with no oversight.

Prior to this, I had been phoned by, and attacked by, two journalists and a couple of fact-checking organisations that have sprung up which can decide your guilt or innocence with regard to any information about COVID19. Of course, no-one can check the fact-checkers. They are the self-appointed guardians of ‘truth.’ quis custodiet ipsos custodes – indeed. (Who guards the guardians?)

In truth they have not scared me off, just greatly annoyed me. The problem is that if they really decide to hunt you down, then you are wiped from the system. Dr Mercola, for example, is having to remove information from his site in great haste. Once wiped from the internet, it becomes very difficult for anyone to read anything you write or listen to anything you say. A major problem if this is how one makes a living.

I was removed from Wikipedia a couple of years ago, but I do have a couple of insulting pages on Rational W (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Malcolm_Kendrick) to take their place. Edited and controlled by – who knows?

I think it is the extreme wing of the Vegan party who decided to write my history, and thoughts, on rational Wikipedia. I say this because a large number of other people I know who are critical of the diet-heart hypothesis, those who dared to suggest that eating animal products is perfectly healthy, were also obliterated from Wikipedia at pretty much the same time.

I did rather like the idea of Wikipedia when it started, but it has been taken over by people, some may say zealots, with their own agendas. This is particularly true of a few scientific areas I am particularly interested in. Diet, heart disease and COVID19.

Frustratingly, there is nothing you can do if Wikipedia decides to wipe you out. There is no appeal. Those who have gained the power to edit Wikipedia are answerable to no-one. They rule their little empires with absolute power. They are, of course, exactly the sort of people who should have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with science. Their minds were made up years ago. They have agendas, they are the anti-science, anti-scientist brigade.

The main purpose of science is to question and attack. To subject ideas to the greatest scrutiny. Those who decide to shut down and stifle debate … whatever they may believe themselves to be doing, they are in fact traitors to the cause of science. Stranglers of the enlightenment, assassins of progress.

They are not alone, and things have got far worse, in the last year or so. Science has taken a terrible battering with COVID19, I have always known that dissent against a widely held scientific hypothesis is difficult.

Just trying to get published is a nightmare. The peer-review system is one of the many weapons used against innovative thinking. ‘Let’s see what the current experts think of this new idea which threatens to overturn everything they have researched and taught over the last thirty years, and have built their reputations on… I wonder if they will like it, and approve it?’

Experts certainly create a formidable barrier to change. As described by David Sackett (a founding father of evidence-based medicine) in his article ‘The sins of expertness and a proposal for redemption.’

‘….It then dawned on me that experts like me commit two sins that retard the advance of science and harm the young. Firstly, adding our prestige to our opinions gives the latter far greater persuasive power than they deserve on scientific grounds alone. Whether through deference, fear, or respect, others tend not to challenge them, and progress towards the truth is impaired in the presence of an expert.

The second sin of expertness is committed on grant applications and manuscripts that challenge the current expert consensus. Reviewers face the unavoidable temptation to accept or reject new evidence and ideas, not on the basis of their scientific merit, but on the extent to which they agree or disagree with the public positions taken by experts on these matters.’ 1

And his proposal:

‘But there are still far more experts around than is healthy for the advancement of science. Because their voluntary retirement does not seem to be any more frequent in 2000 than it was in 1980, I repeat my proposal that the retirement of experts be made compulsory at the point of their academic promotion and tenure.’

Expertise is great. ‘Experts’… well, that is a completely different matter. We certainly have a few formidable ones kicking about with COVID19. In the UK we have the great and good of the SAGE committee made up of – who knows? – chosen for whatever reasons. They wield enormous power, and never disagree on anything. In the US we have Fauci and the CDC. Ditto.

In the background we have the WHO … who can tell you what way the wind is blowing if nothing else. They remind me of Groucho Marx’s famous comment. ‘These are my principles. And you if you don’t like them…. I have others.’ However, we at the WHO would like to make it clear that nothing about COVID19 has anything to do with China, in any way. Can we have more money please?

Anyway, where are we with COVID19, and science?

In my opinion COVID19 succeeded in breaking my last vestiges of faith in medical scientific research. I cannot believe anything I read. I accept no mainstream facts or figures.

We are told such utter nonsense. For example, the ‘fact. that vaccination protects against COVID19 more effectively than having had the disease itself… This is just utter nonsense.

We were told that COVID19 was spread by touching contaminated surfaces… Really? We were told it spread though droplets, not aerosols. Which is the most complete garbage. We were told that everyone has to wear a mask. We were told it could easily be passed on by asymptomatic people. Based on nothing at all. I could go on.

Yet, no-one seems remotely bothered by any of this utter nonsense. The public seem to lap it up, and attack anyone who questions the current narrative. I feel that I am clinging onto a dying religion. The religion of Francis Bacon and the enlightenment.

‘Baconian method, methodical observation of facts as a means of studying and interpreting natural phenomena. This essentially empirical method was formulated early in the 17th century by Francis Bacon, an English philosopher, as a scientific substitute for the prevailing systems of thought, which, to his mind, relied all too often on fanciful guessing and the mere citing of authorities to establish truths of science.

After first dismissing all prejudices and preconceptions, Bacon’s method, as explained in Novum Organum (1620; “New Instrument”), consisted of three main steps: first, a description of facts; second, a tabulation, or classification, of those facts into three categories—instances of the presence of the characteristic under investigation, instances of its absence, or instances of its presence in varying degrees; third, the rejection of whatever appears, in the light of these tables, not to be connected with the phenomenon under investigation and the determination of what is connected with it.’ 2

This way of thinking it seems, lasted from 1620 to 2020. Four hundred years of immense scientific progress. The age of enlightenment. We are moving back to the prevailing systems of thought… on fanciful guessing and the mere citing of authorities to establish truths of science.

The Dark Ages are returning.
_______

1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118019/

2: https://www.britannica.com/science/Baconian-method

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/05/2 ... iscussion/

[dada]

"I accept no mainstream facts or figures."

I think this gets at exactly what I have been saying here in general, recently. Mass culture is both mainstream and alternative. This is the opinion of the alternative, as "against the mainstream." But it's an opinion in a debate that only takes place within mass culture. The blog post presents us with a slice or summary of the debate, and so is just mass culture in dialogue with itself. Like reading a scene from a punch n judy puppet show.

[dada]

Also comes back to the idea of the "reshare box" as a coffin. At this funeral, no one has delivered a eulogy. Just dropped it off at the cemetary gate, ring and run. Are we being invited to open the coffin and pick through the remains, examining, analyzing through the dark science of necromancy? Or is the intention that we simply contemplate the dead in silence.

Who knows. Maybe no intention at all. We can't say. Nothing else for it but to dig in. Dissection turns out to be fruitless, though, engaging with the body is like talking to a corpse with no ghost.

So no science can be done here, necromantic or otherwise. And we might recall the groucho-like wryness of the old necromantic axiom, rediscovered by each mad scientist in turn, from grandpa munster to uncle fester, that the only true and real limit of science is the silence of the grave.

[JackRiddler]

I cannot believe anything I read. I accept no mainstream facts or figures.

At least I don't need to write a new comment:

It is just as naive to presume that every statement from the 'authoritarian' dominant narrative is simply the 180-degree opposite of the truth, and that everyone claiming this can be trusted in their full package of claims.

In almost every screed with which I can mostly agree, someone doing overkill will make sure to add the poison pill...

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Agree with the statement, broadly, that any absolute position across the board acts as a 'poison pill' to a given discussion. But there may well be specific topics -- say, vaccine passports -- where (in my view at least), having a clear-cut absolutist position is practically necessary.

A few examples:

- the fore-referenced vaccine passports: unequivocally, they are wrong. There is no grey area here;
- coercion or mandate tactics (threats of job/career ouster, for example) to practically 'force' shots that are currently experimental/EUA, and still in trials: absolutely wrong. There is no grey area here. They should be optional at all times; informed consent should be provided at all times; there should be no penalty whatsoever -- to limit movement, end employment, or limit any other services/activities partaken by a given individual in an 'open' environment-- for simply opting not to take an experimental shot (the strong recommendations/campaigns currently underway to push these experimental shots on children and teenagers, in particular, are practically full-on Nazi);
- masks: they should be made optional in all instances, given the lack of science showcasing significant efficacy. Children, especially, should have never been made to wear masks, and any school district continuing such medieval policies should end such policies immediately. No grey area on this position.
- blatant censorship of reasoned opposing views, especially those expressed by doctors/scientists/physicians/journalists. There is never any just cause for this. No grey area in this position.

Any disagreement?

My point is simply: we are at a time when rebukes need to be made loudly, and strongly. While I appreciate your overall message, the reality is that, right now, I'd estimate the "authoritarian dominant narrative" is anywhere from 75 - 90% wrong, or minimally committing acts of overt misrepresentation, for most of the past ~year (perhaps with a few fluctuations in a given week/month). It remains possible that sentiment in opposition to these policies may sway the dominant narrative in our favor ("our favor" = to the benefit of the majority, whether the majority currently realizes it at the moment or not).

What would be your percentage range?

[dada]

The narrative is dominant and submissive, though, is the point. The alternative, submissive side of the narrative plays a role like the classic "left gatekeeper." The argument takes place in the mass culture bubble, and has no bearing on the reality of world conditions.

[dada]

Saying that mass culture is already "beyond the limits of science." The discussion of scientific limits has an entirely different meaning in reality, than it does in the language of mass culture. For mass culture, the limits of science denote a football being kicked around, like watching a game.

Using Qanon as an example of the alternative, submissive narrative actually may shed some light here. Considering Q to be a game, as we have here on this board before, and a game within a game. Taking the game within a game meant in the once popular "alternative reality game" style, but also in the sense that social media is a type of game people play in mass culture, and Q is played within it. Maybe we could put it kindly, and say Q sleuthers are playing a sophisticated video game.

Just using Q as an example here, not weaponizing it to attack anyone. The idea I'm presenting is that alternative, submissive narrative is always the "counter-narrative," which takes up its position as the resistance, and is always a counter in the sense that it is the surface where the mass culture narrative is served to the consumer with "alternative tastes."

A transgressive narrative, on the other hand, does not depend on the mass culture narrative, and uses its own build, developed on its own language. Doesn't look like much of anything, and yet is the only real threat to both sides of the "mass culture science debate" as one recursive loop of narrative, repeating itself over and over again.

[JackRiddler]

Any disagreement?

None of the four things you list are facts. They are all practices or proposals, and as you know I have expressed the same opposition to all of them as you have, in posts on this board. So there's no need to ask as if that is unknown or requires additional confirmation from me.

What would be your percentage range?

This is not possible to estimate, as it would require a measure of all facts or "facts" in circulation. Nor would an estimate in percentage form be useful. Nor are claims all simply reducible to the true-false binary. Sadly gotta take each factual claim or fact-set one at a time within their respective contexts and including examinations of relevance.

.