Culture Intelligent Design Science

The cost of silencing science debate: Subjective science

Spread the love

A vaccine research scientist from mainland China discusses the cost of authoritarianism in science:

I did not want the tragic death of my brothers to ever happen to another defenseless child, so I devoted my scientific career to vaccine development. Thanks to the well-tested, safe, and effective vaccines that have been developed, we see far fewer children die from infectious diseases today than 70 years ago.

As a vaccine research scientist in Canada, I realized my dream of advancing fact-based science to reduce the child mortality rate. Also, unlike in China, where information the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) deems harmful is censored, I had access to uncensored information in Canada. That’s how I discovered a phenomenon that could be more deadly than any infectious disease: Subjective Science.

I learned that my sister Zhen did not have to die; she would have lived if it wasn’t for Mao’s insane Great Leap Forward campaign. Many families in our village died with no survivors, while my family was one of the luckiest with only one dead.

Joe Wang, “Pandemic Lessons Learned: Scientific Debate Silenced, With Deadly Consequences” at Epoch Times (February 5, 2022)

And today?

It seemed that the SARS-CoV-2 origin narrative had been decided upon—even when the existing facts did not support the narrative. The scientists took the existing facts and forced them to fit the preferred narrative, and also forced the general public to accept it, while silencing all other opinions and essentially banning scientific debate on the issue.

Seeing what was happening in the science world, and the controlled narrative of the authorities on scientific matters, as a former proud scientist I was dismayed and distressed. I couldn’t believe prominent scientists like Kristian Andersen and publications like Nature Medicine could betray the very principle of science: telling the truth. Instead, they used people’s trust in science to silence scientific debate and advance their own narrative. This is Subjective Science, the Mao-style totalitarian science, at work in the free world!…

Before Canada and the United States become Mao-style communist states, we still have a chance to get rid of Subjective Science and restore fact-based, Objective Science. That will put us in a much better position to take on the next challenge Mother Nature may throw at us.

Joe Wang, “Pandemic Lessons Learned: Scientific Debate Silenced, With Deadly Consequences” at Epoch Times (February 5, 2022)

One consequence is that those who seek to provide non-approved but defensible information are vilified and persecuted, to protect the Official Story by which many prosper, though the public as a whole may be harmed.

Darwinism has metastasized.

You may also wish to read: Washington, DC Mayor’s Office: Let Darwinism take care of the unvaccinated. Darwinism? Just when we thought we were veering off-topic, our issues all collide.

2 Replies to “The cost of silencing science debate: Subjective science

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Subjective Science has been the norm in MANY subjects for MANY decades. “Social” “science” surrendered fully to Deepstate politics in 1920. Climate in 1975. Several aspects of medicine were already subjective when they impinged on official narratives around race and gender. A study that found differences correlated with race couldn’t be published in 1990.

  2. 2
    tjguy says:

    Biotech is an area where subjectivity is a real problem. Studies are often slanted/interpreted to support a certain drug in question. Fraud is rampant as well because there is lots of money to be made and fame to be had. Science is only as trustworthy as the person doing the experimentation and making the interpretation/applications. And, since science cannot evolve morality or integrity, this is a HUGE problem.

Leave a Reply