Blind Faith in Lab Coats

[ecosophia]

I've mentioned before that being a satirist is one of the toughest jobs in existence just now. Day after day, the world parodies itself ever more outrageously, and somehow you have to keep on topping it!  Well, the satirists of the world now have another good reason to hang their heads in despair, thanks to UNESCO and a clutch of scientific institutions. On May 16 of this year these latter launched a new project -- they're trying to get people to sign a pledge to trust science. 

I'm not making this up, I swear. You can find the project's website here. They really are asking people to take a loyalty oath committing themselves to blind faith in whatever gets officially labeled as science. 

Now I suppose it's a good sign that UNESCO and the other supporters of this project have noticed that a growing number of people these days no longer assume, when somebody who claims to be a scientist makes a public statement, that the statement can be trusted. It would be a better sign if they noticed that the people who no longer trust science have ample reason for their doubts. Shall we talk about the way that approved scientific opinion about what counts as a healthy diet swings around with every gust of wind like a well-oiled weathervane? Shall we talk about the number of recent scientific studies that cannot be replicated, and therefore fail the most basic test of scientific validity, but are still being used to guide public policy?  Or the number of soi-disant wonder drugs approved by the authorities and cheered on by science that had to be withdrawn in a hurry because they turned out to have horrific side effects? Or -- but I could go on along these same lines for a week. 

The reason so many people no longer trust scientists to tell them the truth is that too many times, scientists haven't told them the truth. A glossy and impressively vacuous website isn't going to change that. A shortage of scientists willing to say whatever corporate and political interests tell them to say might help, but I'm not holding my breath. It's an appalling situation:  one of the half dozen or so greatest intellectual creations of our species, the scientific method, is facing a rising wall of distrust because too many people who claim to speak for science have told too many lies. 

The fascinating thing is that even within the science-and-tech field this does not seem to be going over well.  For a case in point, check out this article in the online issue of Spectrum, the magazine of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. The article itself is a typically uncritical display of bootlicking, but the comments are lethal -- precise, mordant, and thoughtful rebuttals of the article's claims. (Sample:  "Seriously? A loyalty oath? No. You need to have somebody read TS Kuhn to you and explain him to you using very small words.") It's indicative that the journal closed comments very quickly -- and also indicative that so far, at least, the loyalty pledge in question has a remarkably small number of signatories. 

You don't need to be a meteorologist to know which way the wind blows.  Modern corporate science's crisis of legitimacy may just be about to hit critical mass. 

Comments

That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

I’ll be sure to look into the health benefits of smoking Camels.

We’ll see how it turns out with the mRNA vaccines, if “vaccines” is the correct word for them. If the long-term side effects are terrible, I wonder how long the propaganda will be able to keep it under wraps?

Re: That poster is priceless

[ecosophia]

If you do a little digging it's not hard to find out that for many years, the medical industry loudly pooh-poohed claims that cigarette smoking causes cancer. As for the vaccines -- we can call them that for want of a better label -- that's the wildest of the wild cards in play just now. If we get lucky and they only cause the health problems that have been reported so far, that's one thing; if they turn out to have disastrous side effects -- especially if those amount to antibody-dependent enhancement, which has happened with ghastly results in mRNA vaccines in animals -- the results could be astonishingly explosive. (Keep an eye on the health of congresscritters -- they got the vaccine early.)

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

ADE is also why no coronavirus vaccine was ever approved: every time it was attempted, ADE occurred. Since no one has any idea why, I'm expecting that to happen here. Frankly, the talk of the more lethal variants has me suspecting it already is: I don't think it's a coincidence that they started occurring as the vaccinations got underway...

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

I'm wondering about the risk of spike protein shedding. Both my parents got the vaccine, and had side effects; oddly, my sister and I both felt a little off when they got their shots. I intend to be gone before they get the second dose, so I won't be able to report one way or the other, but a lot of other people are saying when they have contact with people who got the shots they feel off. If it turns out that the vaccines cause harms to people who didn't get the vaccines that could be incredibly explosive....

(I also suspect it might be an etheric issue, as so far everyone I know personally who's run into it has been psychic to some extent or other; but I don't have any hard data on that.)

Re: That poster is priceless

[ecosophia]

How long did it take for you to recover from "feeling off"?

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

3 days for me after my mom's shot, about a week after my dad's; my sister still hasn't recovered fully (parents were vaccinated in late March/Early April). I'll have to talk to her before posting anything about her medical stuff even anonymously, but in my case it was a nasty headache, aches, low grade fever, and mild nausea.

As well as some chest pain after my dad's jab, which is what convinced me I don't want to be around when they get their second doses.

Re: That poster is priceless

[industrialchemy]

How very strange. I also had chest pain two days after my partner's second dose. I hadn't made any connection but I just looked back at my calendar for the timing. Everything checked out, medically, and it hasn't come back, but it was definitely a frightening experience.

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

My wife also got the "vaccine" from the big american pharma company, which is based on host replication of covid-like proteins, last Wednesday. We both felt significantly more tired than usual on Saturday but otherwise had no apparent symptoms. I am conjecturing something from the "vaccine" can be transmitted between people, either the mRNA itself or the proteins that are replicated by the vaccinated. If that is indeed the case, that means we are now all part of a global health experiment, regardless of whether we consented to get the shot or not...

I am now leaning towards calling those new "vaccines", "artificial covid" since they seem to replicate and be transmitted between people. Being young and healthy, and therefore part of a demographic that faces really little risk from covid, I would much rather only get the "natural" covid than the artificial one.

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

John,

Would you have any links to the work on mRNA vaccines in animals?

John of Red Hook

Re: That poster is priceless

[ecosophia]

What I've found so far are these. (I posted them in response to a comment on page 2 of this thread but they're worth passing around.)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5

“Safety concerns for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were initially fuelled by mouse studies that showed enhanced immunopathology, or ERD [enhanced respiratory disease], in animals vaccinated with SARS-CoV following viral challenge (55,56,57,58).”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382/

“These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17194199/

“… vaccines not only failed to protect from homologous or heterologous challenge, but resulted in enhanced immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates within the lungs of SARS-CoV-challenged mice.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21937658/

“A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18941225/

“Prior immunization with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) nucleocapsid protein causes severe pneumonia in mice infected with SARS-CoV”

Re: That poster is priceless

[ecosophia]

I know these aren't exactly what you're looking for but I haven't been able to chase down the actual papers for the failed mRNA animal vaccines yet.

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks!

John of Red Hook

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

It looks like heart issues among teenagers is also a side effect. There's the nice bit of distraction here about how lots of people have heart issues, which I found deeply disturbing. My biggest fear is that now that people as young as twelve will be getting the shots, even if the level of harm remains roughly where it is now, this will be hugely explosive...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/22/health/cdc-heart-teens-vaccination.html?ref=oembed

Re: That poster is priceless

[ecosophia]

Well, isn't that just wonderful. :-(

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

Ahead of long term effects, the vaccines also have to actually work in the most susceptible to serious disease, while the virus continues to be subjected to a little more (evolutionary) pressure from such things as the vaccine. Hmmm...

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

The recent announced changes in CDC reporting of Covid cases and deaths which created a deserved uproar since they handle the vaccinated and unvaccinated differently (and the changes are all very logical - if the changes handled events even-handedly and the CDC went back to correct previous reports) suggest the possibility that there is an awareness that an ADE variant might appear and they want to juggle the statistics in attempt to cover this up.

Very much popcorn and take cover time .

John of Red Hook

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

You don't have to look at the health benefits of smoking Camels. My father smoked all his adult life, and lived to be all of 55 years old, when he died of a heart attack.

Re: That poster is priceless

[ecosophia]

So? My father smoked all his adult life and he'll be 83 this year. One case does not make a meaningful argument.

(I'm not saying that smoking is good for you, btw. I'm simply pointing out that the kind of argument you've used proves nothing.)

Re: That poster is priceless

[mollari]

I assume your father also drank water? If so, does this prove water is dangerous?

Re: That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

The sweeping is getting furious and the rug is starting to get lumpy already.
Aside from ignoring reported side-effects, the CDC has apparently decided on a new definition of what constitutes a COVID case, so that there is one (very broad) definition for un-vaccinated people, and another (much more narrow) definition for people who have had one of the vaccines. That not only makes the drugs seem effective even if they aren't, it will also help to hide any ADE that may crop up.

Re: That poster is priceless

[lunarapprentice]

Exactly. The DCD says to run the RT-PCR with 28 (or fewer) cycles for people who have had the injection, and 35 for those who have not. The higher cycles yields a huge false positive rate, approaching 100% for the asymptomatic. This phenomenon is, shall we say, problematic for the PTB regarding those who have been been vaccinated, as it implies the vaccines don't "work" and may lead some to have second thoughts about getting vaccinated with the attendant risks, and NO benefit. So the CDC doesn't want false positives for the vaccinated. But they clearly don't mind tacitly admitting false positives are just fine for everyone else.

I understand the CDC recently shortened the window for reporting (to VAERS) vaccine-associated events (e.g. deaths) from 2 weeks to 1 week for adults, and from 1 week to 2 days for children ('sigh',I didn't save my source). Even then, I've seen at least scattered reports that people who die right after getting vaccinated got it "too late", even though they were not sick, and many vaccine deaths are, as a result, getting mis-classified as Covid-19 deaths.

What disturbs me is that in my circles, people overwhelmingly accept the official narrative on all of the above. A friend of mine says the official line has to be true, because otherwise we'd need a conspiracy theory.

-- Lunar Apprentice