Monday, January 17, 2022

Science, Politics, Covid and sincere debate

Scientists 100%        
Agree with the
people who fund
their research.

Opinion by Allan McNew

Disclosure: I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 because I thought Reagan was the Antichrist, and I’m not anywhere near being a fan of Alex Jones. I’m not an anti-vaxxer but am pro genuine, fully informed consent (we’re getting a narrative) and I believe that coercion opens totalitarian doors we don’t want opened.

Most discussions concerning contentious subjects become a question of who is “right” rather than what is true, most of our opinions are based on emotion rather than fact and debate often devolves into personal attacks and redirection. There is often conflation of disagreement with towering social immorality in the other.

One way to have an unproductive discussion is to take a small portion of the other’s statements, twist it into something else – essentially changing the subject, then use the change to be wholly representative of the the other person’s argument while dismissively referring to “talking points”.

Free and objective scientists independently question, investigate and come to the best conclusion of the moment, however as with any other occupation there are good scientists and bad scientists, and great disagreement as to what the current science is.

When politicians become the arbiters of science, science is subverted to politics, and there’s always some scientists will churn out the science they are paid and expected to produce. Then there is punishment of scientists by the prevailing powers when their science disagrees with the agenda. Like lawyers arguing both sides against the middle, who are the scientists who represents anyone’s world view? The fictional “97 percent of world scientists who (impossibly) agree” on the agenda du jour?

70 some years ago, “nine out of ten Doctors preferred Camels” (cigarettes, a derivative pun joke was about Doctors trying camels and preferring women). Big is big, tobacco, pharm, or political agendas.

Dr. Mengele was a Doctor and scientist of his time and place, and his science was suborned to politics and agenda. One can write a glowing endorsement or scathing denunciation on Mengele depending on one’s view, but what is fact concerning the man?

Powerful politician Nancy Pelosi declared that science is settled and commanded us to adhere to her subjective version of science, which is formed by her need to push her overall agenda past the goal post.

Dr. Fauci went so far as to state that to question him is to question science, an astoundingly arrogant and profoundly narcissistic claim.

Science would endorse prophylactic prevention, early treatment and therapeutics, which are harshly discouraged. Science forbids putting the infected into nursing homes with the most vulnerable, and where that happened there were other alternatives. Why all this?

Then, the “my statistician can beat up your statistician” game. There are whole books dedicated to manipulating statistics to an end conclusion.

As a greatly simplified example: how many 20 year olds, respectively die of fentanyl or Covid? Then turn to the same question of 80 year olds. You’ll get wildly opposite answers. What time spans? What is the size of the samples? What are the definitions and descriptions? Were the events which become statistics manipulated? Do methods of compiling statistics change midstream? This is just the beginning of questioning statistics.

Additionally, the words “seems” and “possibility” in a two sentence paragraph is not a declaration of fact, but a wonderment as to why we are are not looking at the situation. It's true that the 20 to 48 age group is dying in larger numbers than before, and it's not from Covid.

The Atlantic magazine is not unbiased so their statistics are suspect, and since Covid has been politically weaponized and the CDC has been bullied by powerful, agenda laden interests, it’s my opinion that even if you can find relevant statics and information in the CDC’s profoundly confusing website, it’s suspect.

Who controls free dispensation or censored content of information?

My further thought is that the politicization of Covid is just a small part of the evolving big picture of which the first brush stroke was the Port Huron Statement of 1962, but that’s another letter.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: