Follow The Science™
In order for STEM to flourish, Science needs to be attractive.
There’s been a lot of suspicion cast about the safety of the COVID “vaccines” recently in the places where I read. You don’t see them being questioned in any of the top three Liberal news sources (New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today) however.
Some sources suggest the COVID “vaccines” cause heart issues that can cause death.
We recently saw on network television, a young NFL football player collapse because of a heart issue. He has his whole life ahead of him and I hope a career playing NFL football will be part of that. But if you’re paying attention to the details, this player had to be resuscitated (to revive from apparent death or from unconsciousness) twice.
Why aren’t we allowed to wonder if the cause was a series of COVID “vaccines”?
The conversation isn’t even allowed.
Why?
Where’s “the Science™”?
It’s why you don’t see the top three Liberal news sources ever questioning the safety of the COVID “vaccines” regarding this case or others I’ve read about.
They don’t want to question “the Science™”.
Search on “died suddenly”, you’re going to find some whoppers (an extravagant or monstrous lie) and a lot of vitriol (bitterly harsh or caustic language or criticism).
But why aren’t we allowed to wonder if the COVID “vaccines” are safe?
Why does that make one an “antivaxxer”?
Because of all of the traveling I have done, I’ve had vaccines (most of them years in the making) some people may never hear of in their life (so hardly an antivaxxer), but I question the safety and effectiveness of the COVID “vaccines”.
I question them for two reasons, one, a read of how they work and two, because Dr. Anthony Fauci was involved.
When Donald Trump trotted out Dr. Anthony Fauci for that first address on COVID, all I could think was that we were really screwed. (I was shocked he was still around. He presided over the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the US in the 80’s. Mediocrity is rewarded everywhere I suppose.)
I wondered if this pandemic was going to last as long as the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic?
Probably.
Dr. Evil is in charge.
Why the disdain for Anthony Fauci?
Fauci, was appointed to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the early 80’s. Most boomers remember him from introducing fear and panic about HIV/AIDS.
What is HIV/AIDS? HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is a virus that attacks the body's immune system. If HIV is not treated, it can lead to AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Back in the early 1980’s, it was a new and real health threat that was used to scare many people.
Many people died.
But getting back to Fauci, he wrote that AIDS could be transmitted not only through sexual contact and sharing needles, but also through “ordinary close contact” with the infected.
We were frightened into believing you could get AIDS from a toilet seat.
Back then we trusted what medical “experts” said. It turns out, you can’t get AIDS from a toilet seat, but think about the damage that idea did.
Back then, Fauci discouraged and prevented inexpensive treatments for AIDS and focused exclusively on an expensive treatment called AZT. (AZT, or azidothymidine, was originally developed in the 1960s by a U.S. researcher as way to thwart cancer.)
The Story Behind the First AIDS Drug
Under enormous public pressure, the FDA’s review of AZT was fast tracked — some say at the expense of patients.
People taking AZT soon began showing rising virus levels — but the virus was no longer the same, having mutated to resist the drug.
Sound familiar?
I see him doing the same thing today with COVID, think Hydroxychloroquine.
Hydroxychloroquine is an inexpensive prescription drug used to treat many autoimmune disorders that have been around forever and was first used to treat malaria. At one point, it was suggested that COVID and malaria symptoms are similar.
What would have been wrong with looking at Hydroxychloroquine realistically?
Where was “the Science™” with that?
“Orange-man™” bad?
Instead they went for the expensive preventatives that normal, working people couldn’t afford or obtain. I often wondered during the height of the pandemic, how all of our “betters” were able to continue to party, travel, do normal things.
As always, follow the money. How many people who were making all the decisions surrounding this pandemic, profited?
The other thing I saw Fauci do was focus on highly profitable vaccines brought to market quickly, both then and now. He claimed the HIV pandemic won’t be over until there is a vaccine; he says a vaccine will be the final “nail in the coffin” for that epidemic.
There is no vaccine for HIV to this day. Ever wonder why?
They eradicated polio by finding a vaccine in the 60’s and then they were all out of jobs. That’s why.
There really isn’t a successful vaccine for COVID and yet they’re still pushing the ones they’re currently making all the money on.
But that’s all they’ve got, or all they ever invested time and money in. So that’s what we get.
But, we’re not allowed to question the safety of these so called “vaccines”. If you have been paying attention to popular culture starting in 2020 and into 2023, “follow “the Science™””, “ “the Science™”is settled”, “in a consensus of Scientists” are popular catch phrases which in my opinion, are well over used.
A note for you: Science is NOT a consensus. Consensus in science can be a barrier to clear thinking and scientific discussion and outright censorship.
Science doesn’t “settle”, in a true Scientific situation.
Science is about findings and debating them.
Science is about questioning the answers/findings.
Science is iterative, or circular. A conclusion, in its essence, leads to more questions. This is what every scientist knows and what almost no kids are taught in school.
In order for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) to flourish, Science needs to be attractive.
In the schools, kids are taught by teachers who often have no Science background or Science experience, a very dry, linear version of the Scientific Method. Teaching that Science always follows these steps leads to deep misconceptions about how science actually works.
The Scientific Method is only one tool used in STEM.
Here it is if you’ve never seen it before:
Scientific Method
Observe - Hypothesize - Test
The Scientific Method is also known as the experimental method (one kind of data collection that may be used to assess theoretical knowledge). It is objective. A scientist does not decide how things should be, but observes how things are.
It will involve a controlled experiment. Scientific Method strongly emphasizes empiricism (the view that all concepts originate in experience) and rationalism (reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action). A controlled experiment contains the following types of variables:
Manipulated Variable: This is the variable that will change.
Responding Variable: This is the variable that changes as a result of the alterations in the manipulated variable. This change is one that can be measured, and it is this measurement that leads to the results of the experiment and eventually to an answer to the experiment question.
Controlled Variables: These are all the variables and conditions that one attempts to keep the same in the experiment.
It is also necessary in a controlled experiment that the variables be measurable.
EXPERIMENT STEPS
1. PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
Because this will help you understand and predict what will happen during your experiment.
2. ASK A QUESTION
Ask a question based upon your research. Books or websites can give you ideas, but be careful! Some may suggest science fair questions that are really demonstrations. Be specific in your question: e.g. Will planting watercress on a small slope prevent all erosion?
3. FORM A HYPOTHESIS
This is an educated guess (based on research) about what will happen as a result of your experiment. Use the words you chose in your question as the answering part of your hypothesis. e.g. Planting watercress on a small slope will prevent all erosion.
4. DEVELOP A PROCEDURE & PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT
Design your experiment and list of all the steps of your experiment in a logbook. e.g Fill two plastic shoe boxes with the same amount of potting soil. Place a brick under one end of each shoe box forming a small slope. Place a grow light over the boxes. Plant watercress seeds in one of the boxes. Water the planters with the same amount of water each day, at the same time each day. Turn the grow light on (or put it on a timer) at the same time every day.
5. COLLECT DATA
Perform your experiment, following your procedures precisely. It is important that you repeat each test several times so that you can be sure of your results. Enter all measurements into your logbook. Carefully observe what happens at all times, and write down everything! Remember to record dates and times accurately. e.g Day 1: Small amount of erosion occurs in both planters as I watered them. ....Day 5 Watercress is beginning to sprout, less erosion occurring in that planter.
6. RECORD RESULTS
When you perform your experiment, take multiple measurements. Organize all results in your logbook into charts or tables. Make preliminary graphs. If you don't find any trends, you may need to collect more data, or you may need to analyze it differently. Check your logbook if you notice any outlying points. You should do your best to explain wacky data. e.g. In planter 1 the water follows the same path every day causing erosion. In planter 2 when the new plants started to grow the water flowed around where they were growing.
7. ANALYZE THE RESULTS
Why do you think you got the results you did? e.g. I believe erosion occurred in planter 2 because the plants were sparsely planted.
8. MAKE CONCLUSIONS
Was your hypothesis correct? (Discovering that your hypothesis was incorrect does not mean that the experiment was a failure!) What is likely to happen if someone else does this experiment? How do your results affect real life? How could you improve the experiment if you were to do it again? e.g Though the watercress grew thick on the slope, there was still a small amount of erosion where the plants did not grow. So I conclude that planting watercress on a small slope will not prevent all erosion, but it does prevent most erosion.
So with this as a basis of the “Science” most kids were taught in school, is it any wonder why no one is questioning the safety of the COVID “vaccines”?
Most think the phrase “the Science™” has an aura of mystery about it and that’s exactly why it’s used. Many did not do well in Science classes at school, so they don’t feel qualified to question “the Science™”.
We are to accept “the Science™” without question.
I was taught the above dry version of the Scientific Method. The sample controlled expirement with the watercress woven through the experiment steps above, was one I did for a Science fair in sixth grade (won second place). But this was not the Scientific Method I taught my student.
What I taught my kiddo was in addition to what’s above in the dry version, the Scientific Method isn’t linear, it’s more like what’s immediately above these paragraphs.
I preferred when we did run through this process, the question in Step 2. ASK A QUESTION started with “why” or “will”.
Asking “why” or “will” in the original question with the Scientific Method will take you down the road, but you end up revisiting certain elements.
In Engineering school, you learn the Engineering design process, or Engineering Method. It somewhat changes how you view Science, especially if you have an Engineers brain.
It is another tool used in STEM education.
The Scientific Method starts with an observation and a question, the Engineering design process starts with a problem to solve.
When my student was ready, I taught both the Scientific Method and Engineering design process.
So now that you’ve had this Science lesson, do you think any of this was applied to the COVID “vaccines”?
I bet it was in developing the original virus, just not the “cure”.
In fact, in developing the “cure” the Scientific method stopped at Step 4. PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT, in my opinion.
Where in any of these charts would the development of COVID “vaccines” fly straight through?
Yet they did.
Does Dr. Anthony Fauci only know the dry version of the Scientific method?
His actions and behavior implies this. Or are the vaxxed the continuing experiment?
Something to think about isn’t it?
In fact, it may just take an engineer to solve the problem: The COVID “vaccines” are not safe.
But that’s my personal “jab” at the “Scientists” who developed the COVID “vaccines”.
We aren’t allowed to wonder if the COVID “vaccines” are safe are we?
Shouldn’t there be a constant questioning of everything having to do with COVID, but especially these “vaccines”?
Did we really follow “the Science™” with the development of these vaccines?
How many times have our kids and grandkids in the last two years heard “follow “the Science™”” only to realize there was no real Science applied to any of this?
A book that’s in my queue to read:
The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
A lot of it revolves around the fact that it never was about science. It was about belief.
As I like to say, religion of more of a pscyhology than a theology and people have turned 'science' into a religion (which is why it can be settled.)
https://polymathicbeing.substack.com/p/religion-as-a-psychology
As a former Physics teacher I tried to get my students to challenge everything.
That is the essence of science.
Never settle for settled science.
Your children have a good grounding of how to test their beliefs.