Why “trust science” is bound to take a beating, no matter what happens in the US election

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 24, 2020

Canada, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Science has been running and screaming in so many different directions re COVID-19 and now, here’s a fun example:

(5) Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that the border with the U.S. will remain closed until America gets the COVID pandemic under control. The implication, of course, is that Canada does have the virus under control. But it does not. Using the same data mentioned above from the European CDC, Canada had 4,042 new infections on October 14, which is 108 new cases per million people. (That compares to 180 and 146 for the U.S. and Europe, respectively.) So, let’s not brag, Justin. Canada is headed in the wrong direction. Perhaps he was too busy planning his next Halloween costume to notice.
Alex Berezow, “COVID Update: Trouble In Europe, Rare Reinfections, And Canada Is Lying” at American Council on Science and Health

Four things: 1) Your free news service is provided from Canada but you will not get COVID from reading this, honest. You can run and scream anyway if you think it is good for your lungs.

2) There is reason to hope that there will soon be a, um, change of staff in the Prime Minister’s office. Costumes will become less evident; serious business more so.

3) We have no news to offer on the upcoming Halloween costume but we bet it’s way far out.

4) Social distancing is easier in Canada than almost anywhere in the world. Check a map. Visit when it is legal. We can put you up far away from anybody at all.

Comments

Melatonin is what the EVMS recommends to fight or stave of the cytokine storm. Their prophylaxis is the one everyone should abide by and adhere to. Those people who want to not get severely sick, anyway. Upated EVMS 22-Oct-2020ET_{October 27, 2020
October
10
Oct
27
27
2020
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Speaking of trust: “Remdesivir for COVID-19” Study accidentally proved effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine.
Remdesivir is probably effective as an anti viral treatment. Problem is that it is very expensive and administered intravenously and can only be done in a hospital. So is done too late. Trump had it done early. Here is a theory that makes a lot of sense. The virus is only successful at massive replication in people with weak immune systems. These people tend to be elderly and with other comorbidities. This is what is seen in a typical influenza outbreak which also kills mostly elderly. What kills most people with C19 is an over reaction of the immune system called the cytokine storm. But what causes the cytokine storm? Something that makes a lot of sense is that it is dead virus particles killed by the immune system. There would be exponetially more dead virus particles with those with weak immune systems and fools the immune system to keep escalating and causing the cytokine storm. Hence, is it dead virus particles that start the cytokine storm which kills most? See some of the links in my comment above about false positives which show that PCR tests react to the dead virus particles indicating a person has the virus when in fact they don't but only have dead remnants of the virus. Remdesivir would do little for this late in the progression of the virus when it is essentially dead. Steroids and other treatments seem to work better at this point tamping down the cytokine storm. So the emphasis on treatment should be early and with treatments that affect virus replication after it has entered a cell or entry into the cell itself. The virus kills in other ways besides the cytokine storm. It neutralizes the ACE2 receptors in key cell linings allowing coagulates to enter the blood stream and cause blood clots and cardiovascular/heart problems. There are probably other ways it affects humans negatively but the cytokine storm does most of the killing. Interesting proposition is would early HVQ administration during a flu outbreak might along with zinc curtail it and reduce flu deaths as well as it does with C19 deaths? No need for flu vaccines?jerry_{October 27, 2020
October
10
Oct
27
27
2020
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

is indicative, seems like the authors are ignorant or decieving.
How?
But why include pneumonia deaths for one season and not the other
They did. You misquoted them on what they said about pneumonia and flu deaths and C19 deaths. They said this year the total was about 300,000 for both but you said 400,000. They don't deny the outbreak or that it is severe but what they deny is that it is quantitatively very different from past infections that did not lead to the extreme reactions to an outbreak. Also how the deaths are counted in quite controversial. I suggest you read the book for this but it is reported at other places on the internet on the pressure to classify deaths as C19 deaths when in past years they would not have been so classified. The title of their book is
The Price of Panic
Their book is about the extreme over reaction or unnecessary panic to this disease.
They also want to make something of false positives
Yes, they do and this is a big deal now. Here is a study that shows that most tests will reveal a person as positive when all they have are dead remnants of the virus. https://bit.ly/3e539dI There are also major law suits being brought forward in the US and Germany about the use of PCR tests and their inappropriateness for false positives which are then used to close down businesses. https://bit.ly/37Laeij In Germany it is being aimed at Christian Drosten. Christian Drosten is the German equivalent of Fauci and the world's biggest proponent of the PCR test for the virus which he helped refine. He is a major hero in Germany to many and and anti hero to others.
I must say I find it amazing you could think “anit-ID” people have go it wrong on covid-19
I have a hard time knowing anything they got right that is not common knowledge to everyone. They certainly have been on the wrong side of treatments for the virus and the usefulness of lockdowns. I suggest you read my post from just over a week ago. It contains an analysis of the virus but is long. It is probably TLDR for most but I posted it to clarify my understanding. I have since expanded it for friends who so far have been unable to find anything not correct or likely. Even a couple of doctors and a nurse. https://uncommondescent.com/ud-newswatch-highlights/breaking-president-trump-mrs-trump-ms-hicks-are-positive-for-cv-19/#comment-714679jerry_{October 27, 2020
October
10
Oct
27
27
2020
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Ortho:
I must say I find it amazing you could think “anit-ID” people have go it wrong on covid-19, when the proclamations of UD authors at the start of the pandemic have proven to be so catistrophically wrong.
I know of one UD author who got the number of fatalities wrong. But at least the IDists here know how to treat covid-19 and prevent fatalities. It isn't our fault that hundreds of thousands of people are unhealthy and can't readET_{October 27, 2020
October
10
Oct
27
27
2020
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Speaking of trust: “Remdesivir for COVID-19” Study accidentally proved effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine. Go figure...ET_{October 26, 2020
October
10
Oct
26
26
2020
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

I don't know Jerry , if this NY Post article (https://nypost.com/2020/10/17/how-the-media-is-misreporting-covid-19s-death-toll-in-america/) is indicative, seems like the authors are ignorant or decieving. To get the number of influenza in 17/18 deaths they sum the number of flu deaths and the number of pneumondia deaths for that season. They compare this sum to the number of covid-19 deaths, saying this year is only 13% higher. But why include pneumonia deaths for one season and not the other. If you include all the bacerial and fungal and other viral pneuomia deaths in 2020 you end up with > 400,000 deaths in teh US. Far higher than the number these authors calculate for 17/18. They also want to make something of false positives, but plenty of countries are testing a lot and not finding cases (runnings tens of thosands of tests per positive), suggesting the false positive rate is very low . I must say I find it amazing you could think "anit-ID" people have go it wrong on covid-19, when the proclamations of UD authors at the start of the pandemic have proven to be so catistrophically wrong.orthomyxo_{October 26, 2020
October
10
Oct
26
26
2020
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Jerry, the anti-ID people are up to the same nonsense- gossiping while remaining ignorant of science.ET_{October 26, 2020
October
10
Oct
26
26
2020
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Actual rates in the US for C19 are difficult to get since it is so political. I highly recommend the book by Doug Axe, William Briggs and Jay Richards,
The Price of Panic
It lays out statistics after statistic on C19 and how they have been distorted by various sources. I found it here on UD last week and am surprised it hasn’t been mentioned since. I would bet Briggs is the main writer. Here is William Briggs web site https://wmbriggs.com/ One of my reasons for coming to UD is to get good science and to see what nonsense the anti-ID people are up to. One can be certain that they represent a good sample of the irrationality of the left. They have certainly delivered on C19.jerry_{October 26, 2020
October
10
Oct
26
26
2020
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Yeah, testing positivity rate also suggests Canada is doing as good or a better job at finding cases too. Seems a reasonable measure to me.orthomyxo_{October 25, 2020
October
10
Oct
25
25
2020
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Ortho, but even if the numbers you presented were accurate, Canada still has a much lower per capita infection rate than we do. If I did my math correctly, their current number of active cases is one tenth ours on a per capita basis. If I were Canada, I wouldn’t be opening the border either.Mac McTavish_{October 25, 2020
October
10
Oct
25
25
2020
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Canada reported a whole set of tests fun the Thanksgiving weekend on october 14th, making up about half of the numbers for the day Berezow chose to do the comparison on... Kindest interpretation is that's he's done a shoddy job, but could reasons to think worse. (Canada has much lower percent positivity than the US as about 3x fewer cases per capita in the last week)orthomyxo_{October 25, 2020
October
10
Oct
25
25
2020
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

In regards to trusting science, I find the ability to trust science is severely compromised by people who push highly questionable science as being 'settled science', all in the name of some political agenda that they personally have. For instance, Nature itself, supposedly a highly respected science journal, was founded by a group of 'avid' supporters of Darwin's theory, and Nature has been wedded to politics, particularly wedded to liberal, progressive, (i.e. secular), ideology since its inception. As wikipedia itself notes,
Nature (journal) Excerpt: Many of the early editions of Nature consisted of articles written by members of a group that called itself the X Club, a group of scientists known for having liberal, progressive, and somewhat controversial scientific beliefs relative to the time period.[14] Initiated by Thomas Henry Huxley, the group consisted of such important scientists as Joseph Dalton Hooker, Herbert Spencer, and John Tyndall, along with another five scientists and mathematicians; these scientists were all avid supporters of Darwin’s theory of evolution as common descent, a theory which, during the latter half of the 19th century, received a great deal of criticism among more conservative groups of scientists.[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)#Creation
It hardly bears worth repeating on UD, but anyways, Darwin's theory is certainly not a hard science in any meaningful sense of the term 'hard science', but is more realistically classified as a pseudo-science, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a hard science.
September 2020 - So ID is easily falsifiable,,,, Whereas, on the other hand, Darwinian evolution is notorious for not having a rigid falsification criteria. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-smog-is-beginning-to-clear-around-hydroxychloroquine/#comment-712413
Global Warming is also another shining example of this 'politically motivated' science. Highly dubious claims of impeding global catastrophe are pushed on the American public, and any scientist who dares disagree with the 'supposed' consensus of scientists is marginalized and/or silenced. Yet, despite the oft repeated claim that global warming is 'settled science', just a cursory examination of the facts reveals that the supposed settled science of impending Global catastrophe are, to put it mildly, severely overblown in the name of a socialistic political agenda.
Top Scientist: UN “Climate Finance” Is Subsidy for Kleptocracy - 26 January 2016 Excerpt: Dr. Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist with unassailable scientific credentials, told The New American in an interview after his speech that climate science was far from settled, and that taxpayer money distributed by governments was buying the cooperation of scientists. He also suggested that human impacts on the climate, if there are any, are likely to be so tiny as to be completely insignificant. “The climate has always been changing — warming and cooling, warming and cooling,” Singer said. “So we assume that this is a continuing process. The fact that we are now fairly well advanced in the industrial revolution — it has no influence on natural forcing, we don't affect what the sun does, we don't affect the volcanoes. So the null hypothesis, which means the normal way events go, we would assume that all changes in climate, even today, are due to the same kinds of natural forcing.” The burden of proof, then, is on the alarmists demanding trillions of dollars and vast new controls over humanity under the guise of battling alleged anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) — not the other way around. “The null hypothesis that has to be disproven or amended is that natural forcings are changing the climate, simply because it's always been that way and we would assume that it would continue that way,” Singer emphasized. “So the burden of proof definitely has to be on the people who want to control CO2.” Other speakers at the summit emphasized that CO2 is the gas of life, not pollution. https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22402-top-scientist-un-climate-finance-is-subsidy-for-kleptocracy KNOWLES: The Real Reason The Left Pushes Climate Change Excerpt: On Wednesday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” the host discusses the Left’s promotion of climate change paranoia and explains that it is a ploy to present socialism as a cure for all of the Earth’s woes. Video and partial transcript below. The purpose of these predictions is not to warn you, it’s not to predict what’s actually going to happen. It is to create a panic and then get us socialism by the backdoor. This sounds almost conspiratorial. If I didn’t have a video, I guess you wouldn’t have to believe me, but it just keeps happening. All the predictions from the late 60s, to the 70s, to the 80s. The whole world is going to end in 10 years if you don’t give us socialism and then what happens? Ten years go by and the world doesn’t end and everything’s perfectly fine and the predictions are all wrong. And they tell us, no, but it’s really going to end in 10 years if you don’t give us socialism. It’s all about taking control of your property, of your liberty, of your government. They say this environmental catastrophe that’s going to destroy the world, just coincidentally, requires that you have to give the political left every single policy they’ve wanted for a hundred years. That’s the only way to solve it and save the world. https://www.dailywire.com/news/48361/knowles-real-reason-left-pushes-climate-change-daily-wire
Along this line of thought of politics severely interfering with the practice of good old fashioned science, it is interesting to note that John Nash, (an American mathematician who made fundamental contributions to game theory, differential geometry, and the study of partial differential equations), was only able to make a recovery from his mental illness of paranoid schizophrenia when he, in his effort to rid himself of delusional thinking, said that he made a conscious effort to reject, "politically oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort." Nash even stated that after he rejected politically oriented thinking that he then began "thinking rationally again in the style that is characteristic of scientists,,"
John Forbes Nash Jr. Excerpt: Then gradually I began to intellectually reject some of the delusionally influenced lines of thinking which had been characteristic of my orientation. This began, most recognizably, with the rejection of politically oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort. So at the present time I seem to be thinking rationally again in the style that is characteristic of scientists,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr.#Mental_illness
Might it be too obvious to point out that many more people might once again 'trust science' if scientists did what John Nash did to recover his sanity???? i.e. reject 'politically oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort'?? As Richard Feynman stated,
“Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman - via his lecture 'Cargo Cult Science'
Indeed a measured amount of humbleness on the part of scientists to 'not fool themselves', and disengage their science from politically motivated biases, would go a long way towards reestablishing 'trust in science' among the American public. As it is now, it seems, to me at least, (if not to the American public in general), that a lot of 'settled science' can simply be bought by liberals on Capital Hill when they get together and throw enough government funding behind one of their politically motivated ideas.
HOW AL GORE BUILT THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD OCTOBER 19, 2018 https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/how-al-gore-built-the-global-warming-fraud
bornagain77_{October 25, 2020
October
10
Oct
25
25
2020
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Berezow is a fake "independent" like Bill Maher. He always follows Deepstate orthodoxy but expresses it in a "skeptical" style. Note that he thinks "cases" are the important variable. Shibboleth.polistra_{October 25, 2020
October
10
Oct
25
25
2020
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply