Even though I'm already critical of scientism, the way you presented this information was jolting! It really is chilling how public trust can be engineered by psychopathic corporatists, and how much they can get away with right under our noses! Thank you for spotting these subtleties and sharing your insights with us!
I hear you, Keith, but I don't think it has to be anything that blatantly derogatory. "Corporate science" might be enough. That said, I'd still offer the caveat to NOT trust even "ethical" science to the point of anything close to blind faith.
No one is suggesting that we should have "blind faith" in scientific explanations. However, the phrase "don't trust the science" lumps all science together as somehow not to be trusted. Perhaps you are unaware that many who "question the science" of COVID-19 (OffGuardian, James Corbett, etc) also think that global warming is a hoax. Do you? For a variety of reasons, I have become convinced that not only is global warming real, but that we are very close to entering runaway global warming. Too late to stop. Anticipated catastrophic consequences are one of the reasons behind the unprecedented matrix of control mechanisms being ushered in with medical martial law, vaccination passports, etc. Extreme chaos is anticipated and the social restructuring now underway is, in part, intended to deal with this. It is the only explanation for the unprecedented, draconian measures being dictated. Pharmaceutical company profiteering is part of it, but that alone is an inadequate explanation.
As for being "derogatory," that seems a curious comment from someone who filled his podcast with numerous examples of unethical scientists. Let us differentiate between corrupt science, corrupt scientists and science in general. This is deadly serious stuff and corrupt folks like Tony Fauci need to be held to account. It is no accident that safe and effective early out-patient treatment involving off-label use of such drugs as ivermectin are being actively suppressed with full knowledge of the consequences so that the elites can achieve their "Great Reset" objectives. If you haven't already read "The Real Anthony Fauci" by Robert Kennedy, Jr., suggest you do so. As a consequence of the COVID-19 response, I have become a confirmed anti-vaxxer. I wouldn't trust the pharmaceutical companies to even begin to be concerned about my health except for how it impacts their profits. And certainly not to conduct genetic engineering alterations to my blood. Below is a quote from the vaccine papers website which, in my view, accurately summarizes the sorry state of our current healthcare "science."
"Because medical science is the most corrupt of the sciences. It is extremely corrupt. Big pharma companies pay to have fake scientific papers written and published. Big pharma funds the medical science journals with advertising and reprint fees. Big pharma influences research and curriculum at medical schools. Big pharma pays for speaking fees and accommodations at medical-scientific conferences. Big pharma funds most medical research. So, the people selling the treatments are the ones that have the most influence over the direction of medicine: what ideas are acceptable and supported, and what ideas are neglected and discarded. And anything that doesn’t make them money (i.e. that’s non-patentable) is neglected, or denounced." https://vaccinepapers.org/about/
Before I attempt responding to your statements, I must ask: Am I correct in discerning an increasingly aggressive and confrontation tone toward me in your recent comments?
No, Mick, you are incorrect. My comments have always been intended either to add additional relevant information to your article/podcast and/or stimulate a discussion on what I consider critically important topics. I was quite taken aback by your latest comment in which you seem to take my comments as some sort of personal affront, which was not my intention at all. I view the current restructuring of society as significant as the industrial revolution, but much more compressed. The power dynamics are intense. I was/am troubled by your phraseology of "don't trust the science" because, in my mind at least, it conjures up a negative imagery. I much prefer dealing head on with the reality of corrupt science and corrupt scientists which your podcast dealt with. When you make blanket statements like "don't trust the science," you are anthropomorphizing a process. Don't trust the process which seeks to establish empirical reality? Science doesn't "lie," scientists do. So do "scientific " organizations like the CDC, NIAID, WHO, etc.
Getting back to your comment. The unjustified insinuations suggest either that you are extremely thin skinned regarding anything which can be (mis)construed as critical of your articles/podcasts, or that I am bringing up topics which you would rather not discuss, hence, an unsubtle hint that I should cease commenting. Let me know which.
I only have time for a quick reply. Firstly, my focus on challenging the phrase "trust the science" is entirely based on how that precise phrase has become the standard retort to anyone who questions the narrative. You disagree with my approach and I understand why.
As for your last paragraph, I once again don't appreciate your tone. Also, spare me the long-distance psychoanalysis. You subscribed here so you have the right to comment. Whether or not I chose to continue engaging with you is not part of the deal.
Even though I'm already critical of scientism, the way you presented this information was jolting! It really is chilling how public trust can be engineered by psychopathic corporatists, and how much they can get away with right under our noses! Thank you for spotting these subtleties and sharing your insights with us!
Thank YOU for listening, supporting, commenting, and being a frequent guest! <3
Perhaps "don't trust propagandized "science" or unethical scientists" would get your point across without sounding like you are anti-science.
I hear you, Keith, but I don't think it has to be anything that blatantly derogatory. "Corporate science" might be enough. That said, I'd still offer the caveat to NOT trust even "ethical" science to the point of anything close to blind faith.
No one is suggesting that we should have "blind faith" in scientific explanations. However, the phrase "don't trust the science" lumps all science together as somehow not to be trusted. Perhaps you are unaware that many who "question the science" of COVID-19 (OffGuardian, James Corbett, etc) also think that global warming is a hoax. Do you? For a variety of reasons, I have become convinced that not only is global warming real, but that we are very close to entering runaway global warming. Too late to stop. Anticipated catastrophic consequences are one of the reasons behind the unprecedented matrix of control mechanisms being ushered in with medical martial law, vaccination passports, etc. Extreme chaos is anticipated and the social restructuring now underway is, in part, intended to deal with this. It is the only explanation for the unprecedented, draconian measures being dictated. Pharmaceutical company profiteering is part of it, but that alone is an inadequate explanation.
As for being "derogatory," that seems a curious comment from someone who filled his podcast with numerous examples of unethical scientists. Let us differentiate between corrupt science, corrupt scientists and science in general. This is deadly serious stuff and corrupt folks like Tony Fauci need to be held to account. It is no accident that safe and effective early out-patient treatment involving off-label use of such drugs as ivermectin are being actively suppressed with full knowledge of the consequences so that the elites can achieve their "Great Reset" objectives. If you haven't already read "The Real Anthony Fauci" by Robert Kennedy, Jr., suggest you do so. As a consequence of the COVID-19 response, I have become a confirmed anti-vaxxer. I wouldn't trust the pharmaceutical companies to even begin to be concerned about my health except for how it impacts their profits. And certainly not to conduct genetic engineering alterations to my blood. Below is a quote from the vaccine papers website which, in my view, accurately summarizes the sorry state of our current healthcare "science."
"Because medical science is the most corrupt of the sciences. It is extremely corrupt. Big pharma companies pay to have fake scientific papers written and published. Big pharma funds the medical science journals with advertising and reprint fees. Big pharma influences research and curriculum at medical schools. Big pharma pays for speaking fees and accommodations at medical-scientific conferences. Big pharma funds most medical research. So, the people selling the treatments are the ones that have the most influence over the direction of medicine: what ideas are acceptable and supported, and what ideas are neglected and discarded. And anything that doesn’t make them money (i.e. that’s non-patentable) is neglected, or denounced." https://vaccinepapers.org/about/
Before I attempt responding to your statements, I must ask: Am I correct in discerning an increasingly aggressive and confrontation tone toward me in your recent comments?
No, Mick, you are incorrect. My comments have always been intended either to add additional relevant information to your article/podcast and/or stimulate a discussion on what I consider critically important topics. I was quite taken aback by your latest comment in which you seem to take my comments as some sort of personal affront, which was not my intention at all. I view the current restructuring of society as significant as the industrial revolution, but much more compressed. The power dynamics are intense. I was/am troubled by your phraseology of "don't trust the science" because, in my mind at least, it conjures up a negative imagery. I much prefer dealing head on with the reality of corrupt science and corrupt scientists which your podcast dealt with. When you make blanket statements like "don't trust the science," you are anthropomorphizing a process. Don't trust the process which seeks to establish empirical reality? Science doesn't "lie," scientists do. So do "scientific " organizations like the CDC, NIAID, WHO, etc.
Getting back to your comment. The unjustified insinuations suggest either that you are extremely thin skinned regarding anything which can be (mis)construed as critical of your articles/podcasts, or that I am bringing up topics which you would rather not discuss, hence, an unsubtle hint that I should cease commenting. Let me know which.
I only have time for a quick reply. Firstly, my focus on challenging the phrase "trust the science" is entirely based on how that precise phrase has become the standard retort to anyone who questions the narrative. You disagree with my approach and I understand why.
As for your last paragraph, I once again don't appreciate your tone. Also, spare me the long-distance psychoanalysis. You subscribed here so you have the right to comment. Whether or not I chose to continue engaging with you is not part of the deal.