Crystal clear elucidation of the replacement of
science 🔬
by "The Science" scientism 🙏✝️
Philosopher Matthew Crawford interviewed by @freddiesayers for @unherd . Matthew pretty much nails the entire faux expert and faux science phenomena.
Quotes of ✨brilliance✨ follow:
"Science has changed from a mode of inquiry to a form of authority that you are not allowed to question"
"We've seen this extraordinary extension of expert jurisdiction over every domain of life...it involves a delegitimizing of common sense as a guide to action."
"You can't really follow the science because science doesn't lead anywhere... it can't make the choices for us, and pretending otherwise is a way for decision makers to avoid responsibility for the choices they make on our behalf."
"It's the pride of science to be falsifiable - this is what distinguishes it from religion."
"The problem is when science is pressed into duty as authority, when you want to get people to behave a certain way, you have to express certainty. So science has to be transformed into something more like religion."
"The function of NGO's (e.g., Gates, Soros) is to convert the priorities of various oligarchs into political currency through the alchemy of expertise plus high moral posturing, which in combination is the catnip of cosmopolitan opinion."
"There's such a thing as a research cartel that is highly self protective and has to assert a monopoly of knowledge and also a moratorium on asking questions. When challenges are presented by an outsider these aren't met in kind, but with a denunciation..."
"...that way it is converted into a moral challenge between good people and bad people, as the challenger is said to be trafficking in misinformation."
"If you want to preserve the integrity of science, you have to limit this reflex of invoking it in a demagogic way for the sake of manipulating the population."
"What statesmanship is, is articulating things in a way that allows political contestation to happen rather than smother it under abstractions. That doesn't work anymore because it's so obvious what's going on and it just increases public rage."
"If you want to get people in the west to do something, the fear has to come from inside. So our means of social control is fear mongering- a prominent part of the business model of mass media. But that seems to be getting integrated into state functions in a sort of symbiosis."
Much more in the video, well worth watching!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
PCR test issues, summarized from our Twitter Spaces yesterday:🧵
👉PCR was never designed to diagnose a disease - it’s a lab test to find tiny amounts of rna for research purposes, and without clinical observations it is useless for diagnosis.
From the ThermoFisher manual:
👉 PCR test results drive all the other pandemic statistics: Cases, hospitalizations, fatalities, vax “efficacy.” They are also used to force quarantine, restrict travel, and shut down schools. Yet they were never meant to be used for broad surveillance.
👉 High CT PCR positives detect as little as a single copy of RNA - far higher amounts are required for a culturable or replication-competent infection. Presence of a tiny amount of RNA implies nothing about infection or infectiveness. “Asymptomatic infection” = oxymoron 🤡🌎
My colleagues @ClareCraigPath and Dr Andrew Bostom (banned from Twitter) warned about the concerning heart damage signals a year ago. Key points apply to the recent Nature study too -> dailysceptic.org/archive/raisin…
“A 4x increase above baseline was evident in the seven days after the first dose for under-24 yo rising to over 27x for the 7days after the 2nd dose. The rate/M in males 12-17 was 17x higher than in men >50, 7days after the 1st dose, rising to 74x 7days after the second dose.”->
“For young and old it is not a clinically obvious diagnosis and it is likely that milder cases will have gone undiagnosed. Even for these mild cases, the long term outcome is unknown...Currently, more than half of the reports in VAERS are from patients under the age of 30. ->
Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful FAUCI!
Terrifying!
But what is behind that green curtain?
Wait - who could it be?
Holy flying monkeys - it's NIH Head of Clinical "Bioethics" - Fauci's WIFE Christine Grady - in place for 12 years. Hmm, who knew? And why didn't we? It's not like there is any conflict there, right?
💥State (RI) pediatric hospitalization data analyzed:
👉Only 1/3 of 0-18yrs Covid19 hospitalizations could possibly have been DUE TO C19.
@andrewbostom@ifihadastick and I have been looking at this ICD code data and there will be much more analysis to come. 1/6
Pop of RI 0-18 is ~220k. We also looked at flu hosps with primary dx of flu vs C19 hosps w primary dx U071 (=+C19 test). 100% of flu hosps had codes consistent w flu while only 56% of C19 primary dx were even possibly hosp DUE TO C19. 2/6
Looking at the ICD codes of these supposed pediatric C19 hospitalizations is shocking. There are children there w primary dx for attempted suicide, abuse, severe trauma, poisoning, cancer etc with a U071 Covid code thrown in.
💥folks these kids are not hospitalized for Covid 3/6
These are the kinds of clowns that want to shut up anyone who dares question their approved narrative. Fact: a free society is built on open debate and free speech - never in history have the censors been the good guys. Censorship has never been for anyone’s good but the censors.
Gavin Yamey (Prof MD MPH!) is the poster boy for zero Covid nut jobs who have spent the last 2 years grifting for funds at your expense. He blocks anyone who disagrees rather than debating. He lies incessantly and moves to the next lie. No accountability in his echo chamber.
2 lies in that single tweet. Characterizing PANDA as “anti v” because we are are critical of the data and the unsupported assertions. 2nd, the GBD authors are not scientific advisors. Par for the course for these folk. Which is exactly why they love censorship. But looky here ->
Fun math exercise via El Gato Malo, prompted by the @CDCgov 's "adjustment" of it's C19 mortality data.
If the avg person gets 2x colds per year, even just mild feeling crappy stuff, if we were mass PCR testing >35Ct for "colds", How many "cases" do you think we would get? ->
Well now what if we counted any death for a month after your "+ cold PCR" as a "Cold death?"
That means for every person, there are 2 months out of 12 where they will flag as a "cold death." 17% of the year.
Since 2.9M die in the US annually, x17% equals 490k "cold deaths" ->
Now those are just 490,000 deaths, WITH a "positive cold test" in the past month. How many actually died FROM a cold? Some, but nowhere near all. This leaves out skewed risk in older folks, seasonality etc, but you get the point. ->