This was to be done almost a week ago, but I got sucked down the "rabbit-hole" of research. A word about that: I do not put anything in this blog that I do not do research on. I do my best to find multiple sources documenting what I am saying. This blog for example has at least 6-7 hours or pure research in it and another 2 writing it -as I go back and read my notes or sources while writing. I do, however, post opinion. I try (and to my knowledge have succeeded) to identify all opinion as such, and different than fact. That being said, let's go to the facts.
Science today, at least as reported and published, is a far cry from science of old. Consensus, again at least among what is published and reported to the masses, seems to be the driving force versus "pure science". Unfortunately that is very, very bad for science and scientific progress. Skepticism and reproducible proof are the foundations of science. You may have taken some sort of science class where you learned scientific procedure, sometimes referred to as scientific method.
In simplistic terms, starting at the beginning, this method/process starts with a question. It can be a complex question: "How are traits from the parents passed on to offspring?" or simple: "Why is the sky blue?", or even open-ended and broad: "How do I/we design a vaccine to battle this new disease?". From that a hypothesis is formed - basically, what is thought the answer is to the question. To follow-up on one of the previous questions: "My hypothesis on why the sky is blue is due to the effect of the atmosphere on light passing through or being scattered by the atmosphere." Then you come with a prediction (this is sometimes combined with the hypothesis in some texts I have read). To continue with the blue sky question:
"The frequencies of light that pass through the atmosphere versus those that are reflected or scattered, lean towards the blue end of the visible spectrum."
Now for a very critical part of the scientific method - proof. A test has to be conceived and set-up that will allow a non-biased answer to the question thus proving or disproving the hypothesis. This test must account for any variable and most importantly, it must be reproducible by others at another time and/or place. Lastly, one must draw conclusions by analyzing the results to determine if the hypothesis was correct or not.
Now for the main issue surrounding a lot of today's science and its reporting, as well as the purpose of this writing; the final parts of the scientific method are being manipulated, ignored, or misrepresented in many cases. Studies and/or experiments are being done that cannot be widely duplicated or reproduced, yet they are touted as proof of concepts. There are many reasons for this, none of them good. There are those that are coming up with results that they think/know their benefactors (those that are paying for the research) want. You all know and I think accept, that big tobacco did this with their research into the dangers and addictive qualities of their products. They got results they wanted or suppressed results that was contrary to their business. This is happening in many other areas today as well, I just wanted to use an example that I thought would be as close to universally accepted as I could think of.
There are those that set out to find the answer to their question or proof of their hypothesis from the outset. The experiments are set-up in a way that almost guarantees the results desired. This is done with small data sets, invalid controls, and/or many other methods. There have been serious claims made against the drug safety and efficacy tests done that use mice. I am not an expert on this by any means but what I have found through research is that the differences in mouse DNA structure is significant enough that the true efficacy or safety of drugs tested this way is in significant doubt, or should be. Going back to the first reason, drug companies pay for almost all testing on their proposed and final approval drugs. There is a lot of evidence that shows they "bury" or ignore results that show their potential drugs are dangerous or useless. (think of all the drugs that have been recalled or proven to cause serious health issues years after being used by humans "in the wild")
A "subset" of this type of bad science is the lack of confirmation from other competing/independent groups to obtain the same results. This is done in a lot of cases by withholding the data or criteria needed to do so. An example of this is the climate debate. (I do not want this to turn into a climate debate argument, but it is the best one I could think of to illustrate this) The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) controls the raw data that is used to show global temperatures, in almost all cases. If any scientist or researcher wants to do their own independent climate temperature study they have to get the data from the IPCC. The IPCC only releases "corrected" values for these researchers to use. The raw data is not released. Now, this could be innocent and done for reasons I cannot fathom. The issue is, it goes against the scientific method and independent verification of results. The NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) has been complaining about this for almost a decade now. They are a separate independent group that is studying climate change, yet they cannot get the raw data.
I think that is enough on scientific method and such. What prompted this post is an article I read by Joy Pullman. (here:
A lot of what is following is from her article and attributed to her. However she provided many corroborating articles and documents, so I am going to go against my normal policy and include them. (I do not usually post my source material. I figure if I can spend hours doing research, so can you!)
The article was about how science cannot be trusted, just like this post is meant to be. The first issue she brought up is the police violence and killing of black people (I now find that there is a huge argument on whether the "B" in black in this context should be capitalized. The AP journalism guide and other advice on writing still say "no" so I am following that. Please do not be offended or make that the issue) in the US. There was a study done by Michigan State University's Joseph Cesario and the University of Maryland at College Park's David Johnson where they came to the conclusion that black citizens were not more likely to be shot by white officers. (as promised, a link to an article by them on their work:
Within the article is a link to the actual paper). Ms. Pullman brought this up because the authors / researchers have asked that their paper be retracted. Was it bad science? No, it is being retracted due to the backlash and criticism they have received due to the results they found. (they have issued a statement saying they are retracting it due to it being used by conservatives as proof of the police killings being overstated - that is a paraphrasing of what they said)
As important an issue as this deserves to be studied, analyzed, debated, and otherwise discussed to the nth degree. This paper confirms what many others have found - police killings of blacks (and whites fyi) is almost exactly commensurate with the rate of violent crime commited by blacks (and whites fyi). But the study did not and does not support the narrative being posed now by BLM and others. So, it is being withdrawn. That is not science.
The other issue she used is the wearing of masks. I know, this is a turn-off for you, but please read on. Basically masks have been proven, in multiple studies to offer no protection to persons "in the wild" against the cold viruses or the influenza viruses. (so, it is supposition, but well based supposition, that they would offer no protection against the SARS-Cov-2 virus that causes Covid-19.
I can ramble on about this, but instead I am going to give you a link to a paper that has all the documentation on the subject:
This is a paper done by a Canadian scientist that has links to seven scientific studies done that show that masks are ineffective for the population at large against these types of respiratory diseases. Again, this is not meant to be a discussion of masks. If you want to wear one, do so. If the government mandates masks in public, I will as well. I want to know why these studies are being ignored! We were told masks do no good. Then we were told masks are good. Then a repeat of both. The science shows they are useless - for many reasons. If you care, the links are there.
The other recent example of scientific "meddling" is/was the whole chloroquine / hydroxychloroquine debate and using it for treatment or prevention of Covid-19. This is not an endorsement for nor a condemnation of the synthetic quinine for this purpose. It is to point out how the information was parsed and manipulated for political purposes. The argument that was brought up most often was how "dangerous" quinine and the man-made versions are/were. This is utter nonsense. Yes, if taken in high doses or over very long time periods (decades) they can cause problems, some serious. But there have been billions (yes Billions with a "B") of doses of quinine, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine dispensed and taken by humans since its discovery as a malaria treatment over 100 years ago and its use for many issues by natives in South America for over 400 years! The major paper purporting to be based on a study that was done showing no effect and the dangers of the drug when used as a treatment was shown to be fake. Totally fake! It has now been retracted and the "scientists" that produced the paper are being criminally investigated. It was done purely for political reasons. When a treatment for a pandemic is dismissed and even stopped due to faulty and fake science, that is a real issue.
Bottom-line - scientific research and reporting today has been co-opted by the media to get readers/viewers and by politicians as a tool to be used to push whatever agenda they are pushing. This is not the way to advance science!
Comments