Culture Intelligent Design Media Science

What will the long-term effect be of science journals playing useful idiots around COVID-19?

Spread the love

Some of us have been reflecting on the effect of the COVID-19 panic on the public estimation of science. Here’s an article on the useful idiot problem among science journals:

Only now is acceptance emerging that the science establishment colluded to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory, assisted by prominent experts with clear conflicts of interest, patsy politicians and a pathetic media that mostly failed to do its job. And yet, at the heart of this scandal lie some of the world’s most influential science journals. These should provide a forum for pulsating debate as experts explore and test theories, especially on something as contentious and fascinating as the possible origins of a global pandemic. Instead, some have played a central role in shutting down discussion and discrediting alternative views on the origins, with disastrous consequences for our understanding of events…

Nature’s stance has been especially questionable. Around the same time as Daszak’s letter was printed, a statement started appearing at the top of some previously-published papers such as one on “gain of function research” by US virologist Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli, the “batwoman” expert from Wuhan, entitled “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence”. This carefully-crafted note said such papers were being used as “basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing Covid-19 was engineered”, adding “there is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus”.

Ian Birrell, “Beijing’s useful idiots” at Unherd

Will it become a matter of life-and-death not to “trust the science”?

And, wouldn’t you know, distrust is rising among Americans:

– 33% of people think the information given by the CDC is completely untrustworthy compared to 23% 10 months ago, and only a slight majority of respondents think the CDC is trustworthy.

– 18-24 years old were most likely to trust CDC guidelines, but only at 58%. – 50% of women trust the CDC, compared to 38% of men and 22% of non-binary respondents. ,

CDC Guidelines, Reopening and Stimulus Checks – How People Really Feel” at Invisibly

Any serious discussion would need to include what the Establishment did wrong, not just what assorted scapegoats can be stuck with.

One problem is that when people are really corrupt, they often don’t realize it and their system may be irreformable. But it may not be too late. We shall see.

6 Replies to “What will the long-term effect be of science journals playing useful idiots around COVID-19?

  1. 1
    EDTA says:

    “…and 22% of non-binary respondents.”

    Jerry Coyne, an evolutionist if there ever was one, says that sex is always binary.

    Only 22% of non-binaries trust the CDC? That makes them the most distrusting of “the science” of the 3 groups amongst which they were divided. Hmm…

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    By all means distrust science. Don’t get vaccinated against COVID or the flu or polio. Don’t take insulin for diabetes. If you or one of your loved ones fall ill, just consult Joe the Plumber. He knows how to fix the pipes under your sink so he’s bound to know more than doctors about what’s wrong with you. Just believe strongly enough that we live in a Matrix simulation then you won’t need aircraft, you will be able to jump from one tall building to another or soar like Superman into space without even needing a spacesuit.

    You know science is just a big scam run by doctors, boffins and Big Pharma to separate the rubes from their money. You don’t need any of it. Do you?

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    No, it’s just that science reporting has now been enslaved by politics, where “truth” is defined as the loudest and most persistent lie of the moment. The same with history, which is continually being rewritten as needed, and so on.

    -Q

  4. 4
    News says:

    Seversky at 2: As noted above, “Any serious discussion would need to include what the Establishment did wrong, not just what assorted scapegoats can be stuck with.”

  5. 5
    polistra says:

    Well, this isn’t new. The big mags have been servants of Deepstate for several decades, always boosting the latest EMERGENCY that “naturally forces us” to give all power to the intel agencies and all wealth to the bankers.

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    “You don’t need any of it. Do you?”

    Sev,

    We do need some of it. We don’t need all of it. Not all of it is good.

    That you can’t make that distinction once again demonstrates you’re just a troll.

    Andrew

Leave a Reply