It's Time To End The "scientific Consensus" - Alternative View

Table of contents:

It's Time To End The "scientific Consensus" - Alternative View
It's Time To End The "scientific Consensus" - Alternative View

Video: It's Time To End The "scientific Consensus" - Alternative View

Video: It's Time To End The "scientific Consensus" - Alternative View
Video: ЕГЭ по Английскому языку, 2019 - Аудирование - Вариант 2 2024, March
Anonim

Not all politicians and doctors, having higher education, are specialists in their field. And there are almost no scientists among them. And today none of them wants to take responsibility for the supposedly sanitary measures taken to fight the epidemic (isolation, social distancing, wearing masks and gloves). All of them hide behind collegial decisions, the requirements of scientists and "scientific consensus."

From left to right: the Minister of the Interior, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health issue a declaration that anti-constitutional measures have been taken against the epidemic. They give the floor to the Chair of the Covid-19 Scientific Commission and the National Ethics Advisory Committee to obtain his "scientific" endorsement
From left to right: the Minister of the Interior, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health issue a declaration that anti-constitutional measures have been taken against the epidemic. They give the floor to the Chair of the Covid-19 Scientific Commission and the National Ethics Advisory Committee to obtain his "scientific" endorsement

From left to right: the Minister of the Interior, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health issue a declaration that anti-constitutional measures have been taken against the epidemic. They give the floor to the Chair of the Covid-19 Scientific Commission and the National Ethics Advisory Committee to obtain his "scientific" endorsement.

Collegiality as an excuse

The de Covid-19 epidemic took the authorities by surprise. They forgot about their main task - the protection of their citizens.

In a panic, they turn to a guru for help. In this case, to mathematician Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London and epidemiologist and former associate of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Hachett (Global Epidemic Coalition - EPI). They use scientists and lawyers to justify their decisions.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron hid behind a Scientific Committee on Covid-19, composed primarily of mathematicians and physicians, and subordinate to the chairman of the National Ethics Advisory Committee.

Everyone knows that scientists had no consensus regarding the epidemic. Therefore, the Council included only those whom they wanted to hear, and the rest were not given the floor. In addition, the appointment of the chairman of the Council of Jurist made it possible to issue decisions on restrictions on freedoms as necessary measures, even if they were contrary to the Constitution.

Promotional video:

In other words, this Committee has become just an umbrella for the President of the Republic and his government. It doesn't matter that the country has a ministry of health with a Supreme Council of Health, and the Committee has no legal basis.

After that, the debate about the means of fighting the epidemic and methods of treatment turns into fistfights. Then President Macron, wanting to restore order, establishes a second instance - the Research and Expertise Committee. While not a scientific forum, the new committee began to defend SEPI's positions against the opinions of clinicians.

The duty of politicians is to serve the people, not to use special vehicles and call for help when fear grips you. And the duty of doctors is to treat patients, not to organize seminars somewhere on the beaches in the Seychelles.

As for mathematicians, their role is different. They evaluate the observations. Some of them caused panic with the sole purpose of gaining power.

Politics and medicine as branches of knowledge

Even if politicians and doctors do not like this, politics and medicine, like two wells of knowledge, have turned into sources of income over the past few dozen, and politicians and doctors themselves have become the most corrupt in the West, along with journalists. Few of them question anything as scientists do. Now the most important thing for them is a career.

We have practically no protection against the degradation of our society. We give ourselves the right to criticize politicians, but not doctors. We sue doctors if a patient dies, but we don't thank them when they save their patients, and we turn a blind eye to corruption in the pharmaceutical industry. It is no secret that this industry spends a lot of money on lobbying for its projects and has a huge network of lobbyists - "medical caretakers" who in developed countries embrace all doctors without exception. As a result, for several decades the profession of a doctor has lost all meaning.

Some politicians defend their countries, but not strangers, and some doctors - their patients, but not strangers.

The risk of patients infected with Covid-19 dying from this disease sometimes differs by five times, depending on which hospital they are admitted to. But the doctors who treated them were trained in the same way, and they had the same equipment.

We must request statistics from each hospital.

Professor Raoult Didier successfully treats infected patients, which allowed him to create a modern clinic in Marseille. And Professor Karin Lacombe works for the pharmaceutical company Gilead Science, where she is the head of the infectious patients service at the Hospital Saint Antoine in Paris. Gilead Science was previously run by Donald Rumsfeld - look, and here it was not without him - and this company produces the world's most expensive, but often less effective drugs.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that all medical personnel are corrupt. However, those mandarins who govern them, and the administrative bodies standing above them, are such. The problem with French medical institutions is that they are allocated much larger amounts than in other developed countries, and their results are very modest. That is, the question is not how much money is allocated, but what it is spent on.

The medical press has nothing to do with science

The medical press has nothing to do with science. I do not mean all kinds of delusions refuted in 1966 by the physicist Alain Sokal, but only that three-quarters of the articles published at the present time are not confirmed.

Nearly all of the world's media have taken part in the campaign after the publication in the Lancet of a study refuting the Raoult method and pioneering the drug remdesivir, developed by Gilead Science. And no matter that this drug is not subjected to randomized trials, its effectiveness has not been confirmed, and its main developer, Dr. Mandip Mehra, works at Brigham Women's Hospital in Boston and by hook or by crook promotes this remdesivir. The only dissonance was an article in The Guardian, which did a little digging into the matter and found that the main results of these studies were in fact falsified.

Flip through this "study" and you will not believe your eyes. How could such nonsense be published in such a "prestigious scientific journal" as The Lancet? Isn't there such nonsense in "model" media like the New York Times or Le Monde? The Lancet is printed by Elsevier, the world's largest medical publisher, which builds its business by retailing its products at fabulous prices and producing newspapers entirely concocted by the pharmaceutical industry to advertise their products.

Not so long ago, I informed readers about NATO's search operation to disseminate some sources of "reliable" information to the detriment of others. Therefore, in any case, the name of the publisher or news agency does not say anything about either his competence or his sincerity. Any book and any article you yourself must give a critical assessment.

Scientific consensus versus science

For several years now, certified scientists have not been engaged in any science. In their work, they are content with "scientific consensus." The same thing happened in the 17th century, when the astronomers of that time opposed Galileo's ideas. And since they did not have enough funds to shut his mouth, they turned to the Roman Church, which sentenced the great scientist to life imprisonment. At the same time, Rome only relied on "scientific consensus".

Likewise, sixteen years ago, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed all of my complaints against newspapers that were spreading fabrications about me that my articles were false in terms of "journalistic consensus". And all the evidence I have given did not have any significance.

Or one more example. It concerns the causes of climate warming, expressed by former British Prime Minister Magaret Thatcher, in which we all believe thanks to "scientific consensus". And the refutations of most scientists do not matter.

However, the truth is not the opinion of the majority. She is the phenomenon itself. And it cannot be determined by voting. You need to know it.

Recommended: