How are we human beings going to be able to kick the butts of COVID animals infinitesimally smaller than we are? Or are we going to be like Goliath, who was up to the Lilliputian David?
It all depends upon whether we accept science or continue to denigrate it.
The powers that be are constantly and boringly claiming to be the one side that accepts this discipline, while the other knocks it. Absolutely nothing could be further from the fact.
What, then, are the relevant attributes of the clinical method?
First and foremost, we should hear from all sides in any clinical disagreement. In “On Liberty,” John Stuart Mill went even further in this direction: not just need to we speak with them all, but we should also be totally knowledgeable about their arguments. We need to be able to articulate them as if they were our own. The last thing we would want to do is to shut them down.
How do present practices comport with the absolute requirements of science? Not too well– scratch that– terribly. Doctors who disagree with the emerging agreement have been threatened with the loss of their medical licenses.
For example, “The Federation of State Medical Boards alerted … that physicians and other health care specialists might be at risk of losing their medical licenses if they spread out COVID vaccine false information on social networks, online and in the media.” False information? In this case, that is the considered viewpoint of certified and properly qualified physicians! In many cases, doctors have actually not been disbarred but “simply” threatened with such sanctions. Nor are physicians the only ones to be so dealt with. Medical researchers can not lose a doctors’ license, however they can be fired for spreading out “false information,” that is, taking a non-consensus position on this matter. People in the field with alternative perspectives are also viciously mauled by significant media for spreading what they claim is false info about COVID.
Thanks to Salk-Sabin, the dreadful polio illness is a distant memory. Were any researchers who disagreed with Salk-Sabin’s techniques treated in any such manner? To ask this is to answer it: naturally not. We have not yet solved AIDS, merely wrested it to the ground. It is now, thanks to science, a chronic, treatable illness, not a death sentence. No diverging views on this, and indeed any other successful medical advancement, were handled in the manner accorded diverging viewpoint holders on COVID.
Second, although this can not be discovered in official descriptions of science, reading in between its lines, we determine the requirement that we need to do our finest. We must not choose scientists on the basis of unimportant requirements such as gender or color. If an individual’s skin is pink with blue polka dots, it should not matter one whit. The scientist might be a huge or a pygmy, a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or atheist; great science concerns irrelevancies such as these as, well, irrelevancies.
How does our battle against COVID compare to this requirement? Once again, not too well at all. Rather, we are dealt with to the normal list of how crucial it is that the residents of our laboratories “look like America.” There is now even a strategy afoot to enforce “affirmative action” on lab service technicians and scientists. For instance, this is the policy of the National Institute for Health in awarding investigation grants. Do we or do we not wish to avoid COVID from spreading out even more and treat those already affected? If so, we need to send our first string into the fray, not the bench warmers. We didn’t put a male on the moon or accomplish any other such task with the junior varsity, and we will not do so in this case either.
Then there is the large hypocrisy that needs to stick in the craw of the anti-vaxxers. Nancy Pelosi’s see to the beauty salon sans mask is just the genuine pointer of this iceberg.
Let us state, arguendo, that everything Dr. Fauci states about COVID holds true, from God’s mouth to his ear and after that on to the rest of us lower beings. We pass over the bothersome reality that he keeps changing his mind on these issues however not the vociferousness and assuredness with which he discusses them. From his own point of view, it is imbecilic to sanction opposing viewpoints, to trust lesser competent researchers, and for the folks in charge to constantly take part in hypocrisy. When and if he and this ilk discover this lesson, we will have a far better possibility of fixing the COVID risk.
Editor’s Note: The 2020s will likely to be a progressively unpredictable time. More governments are putting their cash printing on overdrive. Unfavorable interests are becoming the guideline rather of the exception to it.
Something is for sure, there will be a lot of change happening in the years ahead.
That’s specifically why legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team launched an urgent brand-new report titled Doug Casey’s Top 7 Forecasts for the Raging 2020s.