This is a loaded subject and admittedly I will not even scratch the surface of the fundamental question : Is Science Dead? The question rings fervently in my mind since I LOVE science and studied it for most of my life. I was always inquisitive and never took someone’s answer to a question at face value. I ALWAYS wanted to dig more and to find the answers for myself. Maybe I have trust issues, but is that a bad thing?
After watching The Highwire yesterday with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Del exchanging words regarding science I realized how broken our system really is. Is it apathy? Greed? Both? The words that struck me the most were “consensus”. Every time Neil said that I cringed. The context of this exchange, if you didn’t watch the show was basically that Del wants someone from “the other side’ to come on the show and talk about the science around vaccination (or lack there of) and taking Neil to task because he went on several talk shows telling people that getting vaccinated (for COVID in this example) is a social contract because you could kill someone and it is your obligation as a human on this earth who could potentially carry a virus and transmit it to others, the choice is not yours to make. Clearly I take issue with that point of view and it has very little to do with that fact that these mRNA vaccines do not stop transmission. I take issue with it as a human that walks this earth and has a fundamental RIGHT to have control over my own body. I don’t care if the vaccine stops transmission. Makes entirely no difference.
Neil, like many talking heads and those in powerful positions, seem to be nudging our collective proclivity, the overall consensus if you will, to think we are not individuals that make up this country, but a mass of people that act as a collective (a borg?) living our lives and acting in such a way to be sure that we all persist, no matter what we have to do to protect those more vulnerable, which means subjecting your body to an experimental drug in hopes that is does just that: protect the vulnerable. And we need to do this because the ‘scientific consensus’ has conveyed that this is the right thing to do, you know, because of science.
I have many problems with this on many levels.
We ARE individuals and to have a strong society, individual rights are JUST as important as the collective rights. You cannot have one without the other. PERIOD.
Science isn’t static. It’s surprising to me -a man of science- that Neil professes to be saying when science figures something out and there is a consensus, it is essentially final. You do not question it. (like gravity??) And if someone that wants to interject and counter that ‘consensus’ the consensus has to agree to the facts. I find his view on this VERY alarming. It’s so schoolyard. Not objective, but subjective. I can think of scientists on the fringe driven to insanity because the consensus didn’t agree to facts. The question remains though, why does the consensus have to have the final word when we know ego, greed, cognitive dissonance (of which was oozing from Neil IMO) continues to dominate the scientific community? It’s problematic, no doubt.
Neil came out early and stated that we need to believe scientists when they say something. (the word believe….science isn’t religion Neil) We SHOULD believe them. He said this on a few of the talk shows too referring to Fauci and those scientists. I personally find this sentiment dangerous, for what I believe to be obvious reasons, but I’ll explain for those that may not find it obvious. It disposes any critical thinking. Applying the scientific method is about critically thinking, but he is asking the rest of us to just believe. It’s like saying priests can only interpret the word of God and read the Bible while the rest of us pee-ons listen and obey. It wreaks of sanctimony and elitism.
I don’t think Neil understands the state of science today, and in particular the health sciences. It is highly profit oriented and skewed toward compliance with drugs, care driven by insurance coverage, and many other issues including scientific fraud by the CDC regarding research. Neil clearly has not delved at all into the lack of science there really is in regards to vaccines: efficacy AND safety.
I don’t think that a social contract should involve a person’s body autonomy. That is a major breach of boundaries. My health stops with me, virus or no virus. We must live with viruses and if we all hide away from each other (or inject ourselves) we will never build true herd immunity. The question was proposed to Del: is there any death rate from a virus that could exist to change his mind about this social contract…..how deadly would that virus have to be to inject yourself? Del says at this point there is no virus that would be deadly enough. I absolutely agree with him and I’ll take it further. There will ALWAYS be treatments to save lives. Not once was there a mention of treatments except vaccines. Is this where we are at as a species? We MUST vaccinate? How pervasive this concept is, really. How short sighted. Vaccines make a population weaker. Let’s do THAT science Neil.
As I write this I am reminded of Graham Hancock and consensus. If you don’t know who he is, look him up. He has written books and has a new Netflix show. An author journalist investigating ancient humans and amazing evidence that modern day anthropologists seem to ignore. Neil does mention that anthropology is ONE of the scientific areas that is rife with a lack of allowable new ideas. Graham is living proof. While it’s good Neil can admit that, he lacks the ability to see this issue in other scientific circles. He talks as if no science around vaccine injury exists because it’s all about peer-review. (I know there are peer-reviewed studies showing that vaccines cause harm) His fixation on ‘consensus’ and peer-review is exactly the issue at hand. Proposals are peer-reviewed and if not deemed worthy of funding, the science never happens. Am I the ONLY one that takes issue with that? Science is never settled, right? According to Neil, there is science that is settled and it’s peer-reviewed, not leaving room for: bad science, poorly designed studies that pass peer-review, the focus of a paper and its limitations within that focus etc etc. All science is up for scrutiny, right? Not according to Neil.
It’s a scary thought to think that once there is a ‘scientific consensus’ it’s hard to counter that and here I thought science is always changing and evolving. Like Climate science “97% of scientists agree”…..ummm, really? I think many scientists get into certain positions and their ego eats their brains. That’s what I think. I like you Neil….love the show Cosmos, but zip it up just a bit, your bias is showing.
~Sara
Sara Woods Kender
sara@sarasherbs.com
Clinical Herbalist
Reiki Master/Teacher
Psychic Medium
Munay-Ki Attuned
Find me on Substack!
Living In Circle
IPAK-EDU Instructor & Affiliate
Use my code: HERBS1IPAK
https://ipak-edu.org/registration/
Click link for Educational Opportunities
Gaeta Institute
Nature First, Drugs Last
Click the link for 10% off tuition
https://michaelgaeta.teachable.com/?referral_code=G4IDF4
Sacred Tree Herbals
169 Daniel Webster Highway, Unit 1
Meredith, NH 03253
www.sarasherbs.com
Hours:
Wed-Saturday 9:30-4:30