Blind Faith in Lab Coats
May. 21st, 2021 11:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)

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 Or the number of soi-disant wonder drugs approved by the authorities and cheered on by science that had to be withdrawn in a hurry because they turned out to have horrific side effects?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 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.
Re: That poster is priceless
Date: 2021-05-24 02:50 am (UTC)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
Date: 2021-05-24 02:56 am (UTC)Re: That poster is priceless
Date: 2021-05-24 03:22 pm (UTC)John of Red Hook