We have been told that lockdown and other political measures, in response to COVID-19, are all “led by science.” This is not science in a form that most of us would recognise, however. It appears to be the antithesis of science.
Science can become very complex very quickly. Depth of knowledge, in any scientific discipline, is usually required to fully understand it. Consequently, we are often in the hands of the “experts.”
Many people decry these experts but, without those who have expert knowledge, knowledge itself could not progress. Experts aren’t the problem. The problem is that our reliance upon experts can be exploited by those with a vested interest.
The political response to COVID-19 claims legitimacy by citing scientific experts. The UK government say they are guided by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE.) The two most high profile SAGE members are Sir Patrick Vallance and Chris Witty.
Sir Patrick, the government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, is the former director of R&D at GlaxoSmithKline and has a considerable vested financial interest with the pharmaceutical giant. However, this is not a conflict of interest because the government say it isn’t.
Chris Witty, the UK Government’s Chief Medical Officer, whose career frequently benefited from the philanthropy of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, is equally independent. Just because he appears to be at the centre of a network of scientific advisors and medical experts, which has clear links to industry funded lobbying groups and pharmaceutical corporations, that is no reason to question his advice.
As soon as anyone disagrees with the expert opinion of people like Witty and Valance, politicians and the media are quick to accuse them of “denying science.” This tactic is used incessantly. It is not done in the service of science. It is always done to defend policy decisions.
We can say this is always the case, because to accuse someone of being a science denier when they are using reasonable, evidence based arguments, only serves to illustrate how ignorant of science the person making the denier allegation is. Science is not based upon certainty. It is based upon doubt.
While many of us may struggle to understand all the evidence informing a scientific theory, we can understand the scientific method.
The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be presented to tentatively explain an observation. The true scientist then does everything they can, via experimentation, the gathering of data, further observation and so on, to disprove the hypothesis. This is because it is much easier to disprove a hypothesis than to “prove” it. A single experiment can show that an idea is wrong, but a thousand experiments do not prove that an idea is always correct.
Only when all attempts to disprove the hypothesis have failed can the hypothesis lead to a theory.
However, in genuine science, a theory is never considered sacrosanct. It is based upon all of the available evidence. As new evidence emerges, the theory must still account for it. If it doesn’t, then the evidence suggests the theory could be wrong.
The process starts again until the new evidence can be explained. Either by updating the theory or abandoning it in favour of a new one.
Theories do not exist in isolation. If one theory explains the observed evidence but a contradictory theory also explains the same observed evidence, it is unlikely both are correct. One or both are probably wrong. Further testing of both is required.
It doesn’t matter if everyone on Earth accepts the theory. If just one scientist can show evidence which proves it could be wrong, it is no longer cohesive theory. The theory cannot be said to be true until it accounts for all the evidence. The truth couldn’t care less about our opinion, regardless of how many people share one.
This is why science is so useful. It objectively tells us what is. It doesn’t attempt to validate belief. It is a logical process for discovering facts based upon the known evidence. Science has absolutely nothing to do with consensus of opinion.
Yet that is precisely how it is misused by policy makers.
They deploy an army of self referencing, self appointed fact checkers, not to examine the contradictory evidence but to censor and deny it. Compliant hacks in the mainstream media are entrusted to cover up the evidence. They use everything from logical fallacies and distraction techniques to outright lies, with the sole intention of making sure the public never look at the evidence or even know that it exists.
This system of genuine science denial is funded by a clique of global corporations. With almost complete control of the broadcast and print media they are now working with their political puppets, and well placed pet spokespersons, to create the legislation that will consolidate their control of social media and all information flows.
For example, when an interview with Dr Mike Yeadon Ph.D – a biochemist, pharmacologist and research scientist, with more than 23 years of high level experience working in the pharmaceutical industry – was published by Unlocked UK, Youtube (Google – Alphabet) swiftly moved to censor it. This wasn’t because Dr Yeadon isn’t an eminently qualified expert, nor due to the paucity of scientific evidence he presented, it was purely because he was questioning the COVID-19 policy response.
Google claimed that this information contravened their COVID-19 “misinformation” policy. In reality, it served only to illustrate that Youtube are a tightly controlled propaganda platform.
You can post as many videos of video game-play or makeup tips you like. You can’t post anything that ever questions the official COVID-19 story. The Ministry of Truth is nearing completion.
Youtube are by no means alone. Facebook decided that Professor Carl Heneghan (BM, BCH, MA, MRCGP, DPhil) – an Editor in Chief for the British Medical Journal among other senior professional roles – from the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based medicine, was also the purveyor of what they call “disinformation.”
Set within this suffocating vacuum, the notion that the government’s COVID-19 response is based upon science grows more absurd by the day. We do not need to be experts ourselves to know this. We only need to understand what science is.
Science invites critical debate. There is no such thing as unquestionable science. Every attempt by corporations and the politicians to limit freedom of speech, deny expert opinion, hide published science and censor all who highlight it, adds to the growing evidence that their policies are utterly divorced from science.
The politicians cannot both claim to be led by science and then simply ignore all the science that repudiates their decisions. Nor can they claim to rely upon scientific experts if they refuse to listen to expert scientific opinion they don’t like. This is the most unscientific approach imaginable. It truly is the denial of science.Not Led By Science