When "Follow the science!" and “Trust the science!” meets “You cannot question the science!", science has met religion. The science is never "settled." The phrase "Trust the science" is meaningless in the scientific world. You never trust the science. Questioning science is science. That is the whole point of the scientific method (the practice of experimentation and observation). People should be able to reproduce your work to verify the results. There is zero "science" connected with these Wuhan Virus injections!
This video clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UwL6aLE-iQ) represents what passed for "science" in the past, and what passes for "science" even today. Today, if some "expert" or perceived "authority" told you that "mercury with chalk and red flannel" was "science," you would believe them. Why? Because you are naive and gullible.
If "science" was never questioned, you would still be drinking cocaine (Coca-Cola), giving kids cough syrup with heroin (Bayer), spraying people with DDT (the 'miracle cure' that could kill mosquitoes and end Polio), and smoking the cigarette brand your doctor recommended.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/doctors-smoking-cigarette-1930-1950/
If you are naive and gullible enough to believe that this sort of "science" does not happen today because of how "advanced" we are, boy, are you in for a rude awakening. Instead of saying, "I believe the 'science' and the 'experts'," how about just being honest with yourself and saying, "I don't have the cognitive capacity to actually think critically for myself and so I default to believing whatever most people believe so that I never have to feel as dumb as I actually am"?
"What is science? People talk glibly about science; what is science? People coming out of University with a Master's Degree or a PhD, 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. You say to them, 'Let's observe, let's think, let's discuss'; they don't do it. 'Is it in a peer-reviewed paper or not?' That's their view of science. I think it's pathetic. Going into Universities as bright people, but coming 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's 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. So we're blocking all new advances in science, that are big advances. If you look at the breakthroughs in science, almost always they don't come from the center of that profession; they come from the fringe, people who see it differently. The finest candle makers in the world couldn't even think of electric lights. They don't come from within, they often come from outside the breaks. We're going to kill ourselves because of stupidity." —Allen Savory
"If it’s consensus, it's not science. If it’s science, it's not consensus. Period. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid." —Michael Crichton
"Peer-review" amounts to a hill of dung; it is worthless and useless and akin to "consensus." You get a bunch of like-minded fools to agree with your erroneous and far-fetched imaginations and then attempt to label it as "science" (as with the "Big Bang" and "Evolution"). Whenever people invoke "consensus" or "peer-review," I know not to take them serious as they obviously don't have a clue what in the world they are talking about.
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ―Galileo Galilei
Since you think you are intelligent and fancy yourself to be a "free thinker," ignorantly believing the lie that, "Vaccines work," answer me these questions:
What possible reason could there be for mercury being an ingredient in childhood "vaccines"?
What possible reason could there be for aluminum being an ingredient in childhood "vaccines"?
What possible reason could there be for formaldehyde being an ingredient in childhood "vaccines"?
I am certain you at least know the purpose of formaldehyde; it is used in preserving dead bodies. Why is it being injected into children? If you do not know what aluminum or mercury are, or how dangerous they are, then do yourself a favour and look them up. Again, why are these being injected into children? If you are not too much of an ignorant coward, afraid of being proven wrong, you can fact-check vaccine ingredients here:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." ―Richard Feynman
"Since then I never pay attention to anything by 'experts.' I calculate everything myself." ―Richard Feynman
"Don't pay attention to 'authorities,' think for yourself." ―Richard Feynman
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'" ―Richard Feynman
Here is how the cult of expertise works: it is not about genuine intelligence, careful science, or following the evidence wherever it may lead; it is about the perceived authority it affords.
"Expertologists agree, therefore I must be right."
The 'I Must Be Right Fallacy'. The disease of experts with degrees in expertology has accelerated because of our culture's fascination with credentials. Credentials does not equal credibility. Schools in the West are churning out self-assured credentialed-yet-ignorant sensitive over-rewarded-and-awarded graduates at breakneck paces. The population is surer of itself, while knowing less. This is how the self-credentialed and deluded convince themselves they are in possession of the truth.
The above fallacy is used to convince oneself, while the below fallacy is used to convince others.
The 'Appeal To Authority Fallacy' (also known as the 'Who The Hell Are You To Question Me? Fallacy') is routinely invoked by the arrogant, those who have reached the top of their fields, men who either don't want to be pestered or who have for too long believed their own press.
Look at how loosely many of these clowns have been using the word "experts" during the past 2 years:
- "The 'Experts' say that the 108 registered FIFA players/coaches who died is the result of 'lack of exercise'."
- "The 'Experts' say that children who have been getting myocarditis is the result of 'climate change'."
Both these fallacies are being utilized by people providing these arguments, especially those who ignorantly parrot them without the use of common sense, logic, or reason.
So much of what is called "scientific research" today is riddled with conflict of interest. We are living in an era of "Scientism." We are being told to "Follow the science," but when evidence-based scientific data is presented, it is ignored, denied, and/or rejected entirely.
"SCIENCE:
If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong.
If you don't correct those mistakes, you're really doing it wrong.
If you can't accept you're mistaken, you're not doing it at all." —Richard Feynman
This scamdemic was planned! Intelligent people understand this. Only ignorant cowards living in fear believe the disseminated disinformation propaganda being peddled because they lack the cognitive ability to actually think critically for themselves.
You have two choices: You can continue to be an anti-science science denying clown (as with the denial of the fact there are only two genders/sexes), calling long-established evidence-based scientific data "conspiracy theory," or you can face the facts and accept that your immune system is far superior—better, stronger, and longer lasting—than any injected-immunity. In fact, recent studies have proven it to be as much as 27x superior!
Here are some other quotes regarding what real science actually is:
"Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory―let the theory go." ―Agatha Christie
"When the scientific method came into being, it gave us a new window on the truth; namely, a method by laboratory-controlled experiments to winnow true hypotheses from false ones." ―Huston Smith
"Look ... first and foremost, I’m a scientist. That means it’s my responsibility to make observations and gather evidence before forming a hypothesis, not vice versa." ―Allen Steele
"Any chemist reading this book can see, in some detail, how I have spent most of my mature life. They can become familiar with the quality of my mind and imagination. They can make judgments about my research abilities. They can tell how well I have documented my claims of experimental results. Any scientist can redo my experiments to see if they still work—and this has happened! I know of no other field in which contributions to world culture are so clearly on exhibit, so cumulative, and so subject to verification." —Donald J. Cram
"The TV scientist who mutters sadly, "The experiment is a failure; we have failed to achieve what we had hoped for," is suffering mainly from a bad script writer. An experiment is never a failure solely because it fails to achieve predicted results. An experiment is a failure only when it also fails adequately to test the hypothesis in question, when the data it produces don’t prove anything one way or another." ―Robert M. Pirsig
"Science, my boy, is made up of mistakes, but they are mistakes which it is useful to make, because they lead little by little to the truth." ―Jules Verne
"Scientists are human—they’re as biased as any other group. But they do have one great advantage in that science is a self-correcting process." ―Cyril Ponnamperuma
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it’s just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age." ―Carl Sagan
"We must trust to nothing but facts: These are presented to us by Nature, and cannot deceive. We ought, in every instance, to submit our reasoning to the test of experiment, and never to search for truth but by the natural road of experiment and observation." ―Antoine Lavoisier
"We must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don’t stand up to experimentation, Buddha’s own words must be rejected." ―Dalai Lama XIV