Don’t Think And Put Your Trust In the Scientists?

Subscribe To Stop The Insanity!

Get the latest COVID news and more delivered to your inbox.

Invalid email address
You will receive emails from LARRY COOK of STOP MANDATORY VACCINATION.
Tell Your Friends!

A Forbes piece came out recently telling non-scientists “not to think.” The proposition is so ludicrous that I wrote the following to the author.

While I am not a working scientist, I have do a talent for finding blindspots in the logic, to find where the science is weak and inconclusive, and an ability to comment on science as it fits into a greater sociological perspective.

You ask us to “trust the scientists” but “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” What guarantee do the non-scientists have that the scientists are unbiased in their assessment?

There isn’t one. Perhaps correctness and efficacy according to the *actual* data? The Covid pandemic exposes the blindspots of science and scientific authority as it appears the “emperor has no clothes.”

1) The United States public health officials have been wrong time and time again

From wrong Imperial College Models to placing Covid patients on ventilators to putting Covid patients in nursing homes (leading to thousands of deaths) to basing hydroxychloroquine policy on retracted Lancet studies, the scientific consensus has been proven wrong time and time again. And have you ever seen the measurement bias in these numbers….

2) Pervasive groupthink amongst scientists and public health authorities

The Covid situation has exposed rampant dogmatic belief in use of models, often mistaking these forecasts for reality. It took a long before the Imperial College models were challenged. And those that questioned them came from outside the scientific community (and thank the gods they did)!

Science seems to have lost the ability to self-police and even make an apology to the greater public for its errors. We are in a strange situation where the balance-of-powers to compel good science is coming from outside of the scientific community.

3) Permitting conflicts of interests amongst scientists

Oh lord we have massive conflicts of interests between scientists, academic institutions, corporations, and government. The literature on pharmaceuticals and regulatory capture is huge. It reaches beyond the CDC, but embodies the EPA, FDA, NIH, FTC, you name it.

And scientists permit it! Don’t bite the hand that feeds you! Placate the Mommy Science Institution who can give me the resources to hopefully be the next Einstein or Salks!

Oh and does anyone question why non-scientist, non-doctor Bill Gates is playing such a central role in the Covid pandemic? Must be the $$$ given to all the scientific institutions but play nice and maybe you can get your hand in the moneypot too!

Do you know that the recommenders of vaccines on the CDC ACIP committee are permitted to have monetary ties to industry? Did you know that NIH owns a significant part of the Moderna vaccine? Do you think it’s a problem that Fauci has served on Bill Gates’ vaccine board and that Bill Gates boasts a 20x return on vaccine investment? And we could talk all day about Big Pharma….

4) Advocating the dumbing down and censorship of the public in the name of “science”

The spirit of science has been lost and twisted. The original scientists of humanity never had a “science degree.” Did Aristotle require a PhD to conjecture on the movements of the earth? Do we want our children to lose the spirit of curiosity and free-inquiry that made science great?

Instead we see scientists telling “non-scientists” stop thinking for yourselves, stop looking at the data, “it is dangerous.” Does anyone see how the science you love is being undermined by its proponents?

5) Failure to incorporate new information into scientific controversy

The great failure of scientists and the “scientific consensus” is the failure to take into account new information. This is what happened with Covid and this is what happened with many of our scientific controversies.

Mythologies have been built up around the “success of science” such that a hard unbiased look by scientists no longer seems to be possible. Instead a rose-colored view of the past is painted that is so overly-simplified and reductionistic that it makes me gag inside.

Some things overlooked in your article:

– New science that shows lower IQs associated with more fluoride receipt

– The lack of adequate evidence-based criterion for introduction of fluoride into the water supply at that time period

– A failure to take into account other sources of fluoride in the environment that may lead to too much accumulation of fluoride in the body

– A discussion of the government/corporate relationships that led to adoption of fluoride. Who profited?

– Fixation on a paradigm of how cavities happen without considering other possibilities. Poor diet? Sugar?

– Lack of knowledge regarding new science of over-vaccination and autoimmunity (god if you want papers… I got papers)

– Lack of knowledge regarding how many vaccines there are on the recommended schedules

– Lack of commentary and knowledge on vaccine injury. There is a new focus on vaccine injury given news on Covid vaccine. But the history goes back 50 years.

– Lack of knowledge on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System and how vaccine manufacturers have liability protection. And how compensations for vaccine injury have exceeded $4 billion.

– Lack of knowledge in etiology of vaccine injury. If vaccine injuries happen, why are they happening?

– Overly simplified models for vaccines and their effect on the immune systems. Now we know that the immune system is at least 5 systems: innate, humoral, interferon, nervous, and microbiome.

– Lack of knowledge regarding the adjuvant effect and new problems associated with aluminum.

– Lack of knowledge and discussion that the epidemiological historical data shows that vaccines were not responsible for the great drop in infectious disease mortality

– Ignoring conflicts of interest amongst science policymakers and industry

– Cherrypicking of research to support the dominant paradigm.

Give all of this, I think we are at a crux moment for science. It’s time for something new and I would challenge you to think about what that would look like.

The harder and more important question is: is science today truly serving the best interests of the public? And how is this possible if the people aren’t allowed to critically think and advocate for themselves (as you suggest in your article)?

Recommended1 recommendationPublished in Freedom
Tell Your Friends!