The corporate state media, academia, the Public Health™ bureaucracy, et al. have for several years now presented a highly distorted, self-serving view of what “scientific consensus” is and its relative merit as a basis for forming policy.
The alleged “scientific consensus” around contentious, highly debatable topics such as COVID-19 origins is what underpins the corporate state’s mantra to “trust the experts.” (The idea being that whatever the fashionable narrative happens to be, it was by definition formulated through rigorous research by the greatest minds — uncorrupted by such things as money, of course, that might corrupt average people not in touch with The Science™ — and whose conclusions are tantamount to established fact to such an extent that exploring them any further is not just unproductive but somehow dangerous.)
Allen Savory, a Zimbabwe farmer and true environmentalist who specializes in regenerative farming, perfectly explains the problem with the modern state of science in a recently unearthed clip.
Allan Savory says it best. This is the most succinct description of what pro-vaccine proponents do. They refuse to believe anything unless it’s in a peer reviewed paper, and they’re incapable of stepping back and thinking about the sheer surface level of insanity in injecting… pic.twitter.com/R9iUKMLJT6
— Inversionism (@Inversionism) July 16, 2023
People talk glibly about science… People coming out of a university with a master’s degree or a Ph.D., you take them into the field and they literally don’t believe anything unless it’s a peer-reviewed paper. It’s the only thing they accept and you say to them ‘But let’s observe. Let’s think. Let’s discuss.’ They don’t do it. It’s just, ‘Is it in a peer-reviewed paper or not?’ That’s their view of science. I think it’s pathetic. Gone into universities as bright young people. They come out of them brain dead, not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers etc. No, that’s academia. And if a paper is peer-reviewed it means everybody thought the same therefore they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when new knowledge emerges, new scientific insights, they can never ever be peer-reviewed.
Savory’s view of science was once the mainstream view. Even as late as 2016, pre-COVID, Forbes of all publications conceded that “you have to be willing to challenge your assumptions, to test them, and to build off of the quality work of others” as a scientist in the pursuit of consensus.
Flash forward to 2020, in the throes of COVID propaganda, and Forbes’ new policy is that “you must not do your own research when it comes to science.” In other words, shut your mouth, peasant, and worship the Fauci.
I recently covered the tale of a professor in the New York university system who until recently taught a course on understanding and analyzing propaganda. He was, ironically, barred back in 2020 from analyzing the heavy government propaganda surrounding masking efficacy as a prophylactic against COVID-19.
Scientific research has since confirmed the professor’s skepticism of masking, but he has thus far received no apology from the administrators who muzzled and allegedly defamed him and is still barred from teaching his popular propaganda course.
There are not supposed to be any sacred cows in science; that used to be understood as one of the key features that separate science from religion. But the two concepts have been intentionally conflated in recent years so as to encourage the public to accept on faith the proclamations of the high priests of The Science™.
Free and open challenges to orthodoxy must be not just permitted but encouraged lest science becomes a religion — and not a spiritually satisfying one at that, but a hollow, materialistic worldview stripped of any inherent meaning and enforced through censorship and other coercive means.