Since the beginning of the pandemic, a phrase has been thrown around by blowhards in the mainstream media and politicians alike. That phrase is "we follow the science." However, many of the folks who constantly repeat this phrase don't seemed too excessively concerned with actually following any science at all.
The World Health Organization and others have come out for months saying that schools are safe and that school closures are leading to a slew of horrifying childhood problems.
“Schools can reopen safely,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, WHO Director of Health Promotion, back in December.
Yet those who claim to "follow the science" continue to keep children locked down and out of school — leading to an epidemic of childhood suicide. This is just one of many examples.
Despite brutal lockdowns, mandates, the complete destruction of the economy, and putting the police state on steroids, cases still shot to record levels through December and early January. Every time they rise, the politicians take to their podiums and blame the citizens for not following their arbitrary and often entirely unscientific dictates close enough. More force is threatened and more arbitrary rules rolled out. Despite the utterly horrifying effects of the lockdowns, politicians across the world keep forcing them on the citizens. Why is that?
Are they really following the science? Does following The Science(TM) mean that scientists and experts who disagree with The Science(TM) ought to be banned, silenced, and cancelled? If not, then why is that happening despite many of these disagreements being proven right?
Throughout history, The Science(TM) has been resistant to skeptics. Anyone who challenges the established narrative is cast out, ridiculed, and shunned. Now, Big Tech has joined in and helps to silence those who are skeptical — even if they are Harvard educated experts.
To be clear, a scientific consensus is not to be easily discounted. Thousands of people all coming to similar conclusions through varying applications of the scientific method is a powerful means of explaining and understanding our environment and presence on this planet and in the universe. Coming to a consensus allows humanity to make better decisions about fostering a more sustainable future and helps us figure out how to progress as a species and deal with the various woes we face — like COVID-19.
That being said, the collective is often dangerously — and deadly — wrong. Do not mistake this for a stance on vaccines, the pandemic, or any health measures. That is a moot point for the purpose of this issue. However, indoctrinating people to unquestioningly accept what The Science(TM) says as fact, through various means of information manipulation can and will have damning consequences.
Without people questioning our very reality, science would likely still be stuck in the stone ages.
This current method of cancelling, censoring, and banning, sets out to grow the herd of consensus, simply by convincing people that doing anything but unquestioningly accepting the consensus is wrong.
“Consensus messages don’t ask people to change their beliefs — they ask them to change their opinion about what other people believe, so they’re not a direct threat to their identity,” says Sander van der Linden, a psychology professor at Cambridge, who has tested the strength of "inoculation messages" in a program to manipulate people into being less skeptical.
Once people view the consensus as non-threatening, they will readily accept the science on the matter. Seems harmless enough, right?
Well, it does if you haven't studied history at all.
Eugenics, the 'science' of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics, is a dark stain on humanity's past — and, it was also the scientific consensus.
Recommended for You
While most people associate it with Adolf Hitler and his movement to create a supreme race in Nazi Germany, the fact is that eugenics sciences began in the 1860s. By Hitler's time, it was a consensus among many that the human population could be improved through selective breeding and the horrific treatment of people deemed 'inferior' by The Science(TM).
One need only look at its horrid implementation and practice to see the gruesome reality of blindly following a consensus that is dead wrong.
Eugenics is a prime example of how the scientific consensus can be manipulated and misused to support unscrupulous ends.
While eugenics is an extreme version of the consensus gone awry, consider the Hungarian doctor, Ignaz Semmelweis, as another example.
Semmelweis wanted to figure out why so many women in maternity wards were dying from puerperal fever — commonly known as childbed fever.
Through a long period of trial and error, Semmelweis hypothesized that washing one's hands could help reduce childbed fever and save lives. This was before the science was clear on germs and Semmelweis had only come to this theory based on observations.
When Semmelweis implemented the practice of doctors washing their hands with chlorine prior to delivering babies in the maternity ward, the rate of childbed fever fell — dramatically.
However, what happened next serves to illustrate the dangerous nature of a consensus unwilling to change. While Semmelweis is now credited with saving lives by implementing hand-washing, things were far different back in his day.
After his hand-procedure began saving countless lives, doctors became angry at Semmelweis because they thought he made it look like they were the ones making the babies sick. Eventually, all the doctors stopped washing their hands and went back to their normal routine. The consensus won — it was wrong — and people died.
For years, Semmelweiss would try to convince people that washing their hands saved lives but it was futile. Just as Facebook, Twitter, the mainstream media, and others all silence and ridicule those who challenge The Science(TM), the more he challenged the status quo — even showing proof of saving lives — Semmelweiss was chastised and cast out of the scientific community.
But casting him out of the scientific community was just the start. For challenging the consensus with truth, Semmelweis was committed to a mental asylum.
While the details of his death aren't 100 percent known, it is believed that he was beaten in the asylum and he died an ironic death from sepsis — one of the same diseases he fought so hard to prevent through the washing of hands.
While Semmelweiss was alive, there was no such thing as Big Tech and Fact Checkers. However, had there been such a thing, rest assured, that he would've never attempted to challenge the status quo — despite being heavily ridiculed and shunned — and the idea of washing hands could still be a 'conspiracy theory' today.
What the above two examples illustrate is the nature of science and its tendency to resist being proven wrong. While it is entirely noble to want to rid humanity of disinformation, sometimes that 'disinformation' is actually truth. Without the crazies in the peanut gallery keeping scientists and the consensus on their A-game, reality is not challenged and disinformation can become mainstream.
In the words of the late great George Carlin, humanity would do well to always "Question Everything" especially The Science(TM).