$0.28 total tips
By Helen RaleighSEPTEMBER 1, 2021Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the American people have been told to “follow the science.” Yet for a year and a half, they’ve heard contradicting messages from self-appointed prophets of “the science” like Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).We learned that politicians who claimed their decisions were science-driven often ignored scientific findings that didn’t fit certain political narratives. We discovered that scientists are fallible human beings, and some would let personal interests and political views cloud their judgment.Is science itself one of the victims of the COVID-19 pandemic? I asked Dr. Scott Atlas at the 13th annual Freedom Conference hosted by the Steamboat Institute, a Colorado-based nonprofit organization. Formerly a professor and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center, Atlas is now a senior fellow in health policy at the Hoover Institution.Atlas has been under constant attacks by the left and the corporate media since he served as a special adviser to former President Trump and a member of the White House coronavirus task force from August to November 2020. The New York Times and the Washington Post ran hit pieces on Atlas, questioning his qualifications despite his distinguished career and scholarship.Google-owned YouTube also removed a 50-minute video of Atlas’s interview with the Hoover Institute. Twitter took down his tweet that questioned the effectiveness of masks.‘Science’ Destroyed Its Own CredibilityAtlas has refused to be silenced. He has a lot to say about how the scientific field and Americans’ trust in it have been tremendously harmed during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Science has been not just a victim,” he told me, “but actively participated in the self-destruction of its credibility.”To prove his point, Atlas referred to the now infamous letter published in Lancet, which denounced the lab-leak theory as a “conspiracy” that created “fear, rumors, and prejudice.” Facebook “fact-checkers” used the letter to censor discussion of the lab-leak theory for more than a year.It then surfaced in The Daily Mail that Peter Daszak, president of Eco Health Alliance, orchestrated a group of scientists to write the letter without disclosing the EHA’s close financial ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Now many scientists accept that the WIV lab-leak theory is just as probable as the natural origin theory.Atlas also faulted leading scientific publications such as Nature and Lancet for playing “important roles in enabling, encouraging, and enforcing the false narrative.” In June, journalist Ian Birrell cited one source who estimated the publisher of Nature had sponsorship agreements worth millions of dollars from Chinese institutions.“Science is not supposed to be about intimidating, countering interpretation of data, or abusing, or censoring data,” Atlas said. “Science is not supposed to have a view. Science is only about data and the scientific process. There is never supposed to be ‘an accepted view’ of science.”Stop Censoring the Scientific ProcessPoliticians and pundits also lost people’s trust by advocating regulations that were not based in fact. “The phrase ‘follow the science’ should never be uttered again by people who do not know actual data. They must stop,” Atlas said. “They have no credibility whatsoever when they get up and say, ‘follow the science.’ It’s clear many of them don’t know the science, don’t understand the science, and they are not using the science to make the recommendations.”How can science and scientists recover from this trust deficit? “It depends on only one thing — the visibility of the scientific process, which by definition is about the visibility of the data,” Atlas said. “There should be no censorship of views and interpretation of different data. Do not intimidate or issue harsh condemnations of people just because you disagree with them. Let the truth prevail by the data.”He has received hundreds of emails from other scientists who have encouraged him to remain outspoken while afraid to speak up themselves. “The saving of science really depend[s] on scientists to come forward and to be unafraid to say that the objectivity of science and [the] scientific process itself has been contaminated and impeded,” he continued. “When more scientists come forward, there hopefully will be a reversal of that [trust deficit]. There is no such thing as science without the evidence being visible and debates being current. Science doesn’t exist in any other way.”How can we do a better job of fighting back the next time our ruling class tries to send us into crisis mode? We have to recognize what the data revealed about this current pandemic, Atlas said, citing several recent studies (including one by Eran Bendavid and other scientists of Stanford University) showing that lockdowns didn’t work to keep COVID-19 from spreading while imposing their own severe additional costs.Never Let Lockdowns Destroy Lives AgainLockdowns destroyed people, Atlas said, by “shutting down medical care, stopping people from seeking emergency medical care, increasing drug abuse, increasing death by suicide, more psychological damage, particularly among the younger generation. Hundreds and thousands of child abuse cases went unreported. Teenagers’ self-harm cases have tripled.”Atlas also noted the increase of other deaths like tuberculosis, caused by the world’s focus on COVID-19. The World Health Organization warned in 2020 of up to an additional 400,000 deaths from tuberculosis because of the diversion of resources to COVID-19. “Mortality data showing that anywhere from a third or half of the deaths during the pandemic were not due to COVID-19,” Atlas said. “They were extra deaths due to the lockdowns.”Besides causing health issues, the lockdowns have enormous economic costs, especially for poor people and developing countries. The Bangladesh economy’s shutdown during the pandemic, Atlas noted, was forecast to wipe out about $3 billion and close to 900,000 jobs off the nation’s economy with a devastating effect on the nation’s poor.“We can never use the lockdown strategy again,” Atlas emphasized. Instead, we should offer targeted protections for high-risk people but no lockdowns of low-risk people. Other scientists, such as the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration, have advocated for the same approach.Atlas offers additional advice on how to prepare for the next pandemic based on lessons learned from COVID-19 in his upcoming new book, “A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America,” which is available for preorder now.Ultimately, Atlas said, the most important lesson to learn from the COVID-19 pandemic is that individuals must take responsibility for their own health-related decisions. We should never surrender our autonomy and capability to assess our risk tolerance to bureaucrats or the so-called expert class.
Yes, but Covid is SUPPOSED to destroy America, that's the whole point. "Science" is just another credibility extraction tool for propaganda.
Independent Conversation with Special Guest Scott Atlas
How can we do a better job of fighting back the next time our ruling class tries to send us into crisis mode?
But no one is paying attention to the BLM grifters anymore, because now all of our lives are in danger from Fauci's murderous incompetence or corruption, or both.
The parasites running this show are getting very old
If the long term harms of the jab turn out to be obviously more severe than the mere tens out thousands dead so far, the powers that be are toast.We live in interesting times.
The vaxx is simply garbage because it was rushed, not because it was created to be harmful. The parasites running this show are getting very old and they want to see their dreams achieved before they die, so they aren't going to stop just because this gene therapy kills a bunch of people while not doing what it's advertised to do. They'll just push more money into propaganda to cover it up and convince the people that everything's a-okay.
How could we reliably handle a big WMD attack if a fairly normal Hurricane in a routine landing location was botched, despite spending countless billions?
I think the ultimate problem is that the people in power don't give a shit about America. They spent those countless billions in ways that allowed them to skim, and not to actually save anyone's life.
The biggest shock amid the COVID-19 pandemic has been the discovery that the virus may have been released during an illegal collaboration on so-called ‘gain-of-function’ research between the US nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Recently revealed National Institutes of Health (NIH) documents show that American taxpayers directly subsidized this joint effort, despite a federal government ban on any experiment that might give pathogens the ability to leap species.Even worse was that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak tried to shut down any debate on whether the coronavirus had been leaked from a lab by getting 27 prominent scientists to endorse a March 2020 letter to the medical journal Lancet. Yet one crucial detail was omitted from the correspondence: 26 of his 27 co-signatories also had connections to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.While the layperson might find it fantastic that so many researchers could have been engaged in such cynical and destructive behavior, this has become the reality of a scientific profession full of deception, rank self-seeking, and even political manipulation.In 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, co-director of Stanford University’s Meta-Research Innovation Center, published a comprehensive report showing that much of what for passes for ‘settled science’ in medicine, biology, economics, education research, and the social sciences generally cannot, in fact, be replicated. In other words, by the ultimate test of scientific validity – the ability to get the same result for the same experiment – a lot of what academics have said over the years isn’t true.In 2015, Science magazine tried to replicate the findings of 100 articles published in three prominent psychological journals and found that only 36 had the predicted results. One year later, the Federal Reserve did its own study, which could not reproduce most outcomes of prominent economics articles they had picked for review. Ioannidis himself now believes that up to half of the discoveries ever published in peer-reviewed social science and medical journals are wrong, an opinion he shares with National Association of Scholars (NAS) president Peter Wood. One terrible result, says Wood, is that many of the regulations, laws, and programs routinely passed by Congress on the basis of supposedly solid research have no real scientific justification.Giving phony research a scientific veneer, it turns out, is not all that hard, according to David Randall and Christopher Welser, co-authors of the ‘The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform.’ Typical methods include using unreliable statistical formulas, depending on sample sizes that are too small to be accurate, giving credence to small effects, and, most suspiciously of all, refusing to share one’s raw experimental data with colleagues.To appreciate just how effectively such gimmickry can keep fooling the public, we need only refer to the 20th century’s best known and most influential scientific fraud, psychoanalysis. Building on the 1890s research of a Viennese doctor named Sigmund Freud, who claimed that emotionally disturbed patients experience symptom relief while sharing uncensored dreams and word associations, American doctors, therapists, and social scientists created an entire industry devoted to the interpretation of repressed desires, drives, and childhood fantasies. By the 1950s, the chair of psychiatry at every major U.S. medical school was occupied by a psychoanalyst.It was not until the 1990s – a full century after Freud – that the exploding cost of health insurance coverage for emotional problems finally led to a more rigorous examination of psychoanalysis. The research that followed showed that nearly every psychological complaint could be treated far more quickly, effectively, and economically without psychoanalysis, a technique which turned out to be little more helpful than doing nothing at all.In fairness, it should be said that not all, or perhaps even most, fake science is due to outright lying. Hoping to succeed after years of hard work, a researcher can easily be tempted either to unconsciously bias an experimental outcome or to frame the results in an overly optimistic way.Cancer researchers seem especially prone to embellishing their findings, which is why we are always reading about some ‘laboratory breakthrough’ that a year or two later does not amount to much. A 2016 report by Kaiser Health News lamented that so many marginal cancer therapies are often described in the press as ‘incredible,’ ‘game changing,’ ‘miraculous,’ ‘revolutionary,’ ‘transformative,’ ‘lifesaving,’ ‘groundbreaking,’ or ‘a medical marvel.’There also seems to be a strong psychological resistance among scientists and medical practitioners to challenging the thinking of their colleagues, no matter how outdated. As the Dartmouth Medical School documented in a series of controversial reports in the late 1980s, the best predictor of how any physician or medical researcher approaches some serious illness is local custom. In other words, he or she simply goes along with whatever similar professionals in the neighborhood are doing, regardless of how well or poorly regional health outcomes compare with other parts of the country.And then there is the subtle but undeniable ideological pressure, which stems from the fact so much of modern scientific research is subsidized by left-leaning government bureaucrats and liberal foundations. This is not to suggest anything as blatantly corrupt as an explicit demand by funders that grant recipients reinforce certain political ideas. There is simply, as the late Irving Kristol first observed, a natural human tendency for public and private officials to support those academics whose findings confirm their own opinions, as well as a natural temptation for academics to tell their funders what they want to hear.One result, well-documented for more than 25 years, is that any academic study that contradicts left-wing thinking has an especially difficult time getting the peer endorsements needed for publication. This is true even when the rejected paper is just as comprehensively researched as the more liberal papers commonly accepted by prestigious journals.It is also not a coincide that attempts to prevent or disrupt academic symposia on how to improve research accuracy almost always seem to come from the left. Most recently, two graduate students set to speak at an Independent Institute conference on experimental irreproducibility were forced to withdraw out of concern for career sabotage by progressive colleagues, according to the organizers.Between outright attempts to misrepresent scientific evidence, as seems to have been the case with the Wuhan-connected researchers, and the failure to compensate for more subtle biases, scientific corruption does not seem likely to end any time soon. For however prestigious their degrees, academics are no less susceptible to human weaknesses than anyone else. In the end, the closest we can ever get to a dependable truth lies somewhere between common sense and dogged double-checking.By Lewis M. Andrews
OUCH! Richard Ebright and 15 Top Scientists Eviscerate Fauci and Daszak in Lancet Medical JournalBy Richard AbelsonPublished September 20, 2021 at 9:59am... Ebright and collegaues also skewered Fauci’s stooges for placing “unity” and their political agenda over critical evaluation and science:“As scientists, we need to evaluate all hypotheses on a rational basis, and to weigh their likelihood based on facts and evidence, devoid of speculation concerning possible political impacts. Contrary to the first letter published in The Lancet … we do not think that scientists should promote “unity” (“We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture”).As shown above, research-related hypotheses are not misinformation and conjecture. More importantly, science embraces alternative hypotheses, contradictory arguments, verification, refutability, and controversy. Departing from this principle risks establishing dogmas, abandoning the essence of science, and, even worse, paving the way for conspiracy theories. Instead, the scientific community should bring this debate to a place where it belongs: the columns of scientific journals.”It is hard to imagine how Fauci, Daszak, Farrar and their co-conspirators can remain in their positions after this brutal scientific takedown.
Tue Nov 16, 2021 - 3:54 pm EST(LifeSiteNews) – Top COVID expert Dr. Peter McCullough has some explosive news regarding the experimental ‘vaccines’ and how the medical establishment is refusing to show the truth about them.On today’s episode of The John-Henry Westen Show, he announced that he’s launching a lawsuit against a medical journal that removed scientific papers proving that there are major risks for children, and others, who receive the COVID jabs.According to McCullough, the journal, “Elsevier,” originally published the study, but scrubbed it just days before the FDA met to discuss approval for the injections to 5-11 year olds.“This is an overt act of censorship,” he said. “We will be launching a full scale lawsuit against Elsevier, and its going to be for breach of contract.”But why did they hide the papers from the public and the scientific community?Dr. McCullough pointed out that these studies prove that the jabs cause severe injury to children and people of nearly every age group.“The most notable finding is that this myocarditis heart inflammation that occurs typically on the second shot after either Pfizer or Moderna, it is explosive and it happens within a few days of the second shot.”
Lawrence Krauss: Why the easily offended are a threat to scientific progressThe mantras of diversity, inclusion and anti-racism are placing feelings above academic freedomAuthor of the article:Lawrence M. Krauss, Special to National PostPublishing date:Dec 05, 2021