“Trust The Science” – Manipulative & Moronic
“Trust the science” … if ever a more manipulative and moronic, I enjoy alliteration, phrase has been spouted from every possible mountain top recently. It’s usually said in relation to the COVID Vaccines. The phrase standing on its own sounds quite reasonable. What you don’t believe in “science?” Are you anti-science? What a fool you must be! This is what lends to the manipulative aspect of the phrase. Not that we should ignore science and data, but we should see it for what it is, and what issues there may be with it, after it’s analyzed deeper. We should not ignore the reality occurring all around us because of past trials, data (that may be or is weak), and so called “science.” Plus we should realize what we think we know now may not be true. If people learned anything from history, they would know better.
Trust the science to me sounds more like, trust what I’m telling you and don’t think about it any further. Trust the authorities and credentialed in charge, you aren’t smart enough to analyze this and have an opinion. Trust the data and pretend like “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics” isn’t an accurate quotation. Trust that studies have always held up to the same level of safety when the drug/product is more widely used in public. Trust that people are infallible and never have ulterior motivations. Trust that the those in the government will always act in the best interest of the people. Trust that nothing has been distorted in a way to show what whomever is overseeing things wants to show. Trust that we will not learn anything more in the future. Trust that the science is settled, despite how many times the scientific community has been incorrect or hasn’t been aware of a safety issue in the past (or has been and flat out ignored it).
If people uttering “trust the science” weren’t so ignorant of history, or just disingenuous about it in a manipulative way, they would know how moronic it is to say that. Here is a history lesson for these ignorant people:
- DDT (Pesticide): Available for public use in USA in 1945. In October 1945, National Geographic ran a feature on the “world of tomorrow.” They declared health and medicine would be vastly improved thanks to sterilizing lamps, penicillin, and, of course, DDT. In 1957 The New York Times reported an unsuccessful struggle to restrict DDT use in Nassau County, NY. In 1962, the book Silent Spring argued that pesticides, including DDT, were poisoning both wildlife and the environment and were endangering human health. DDT became a prime target of the growing anti-chemical and anti-pesticide movements, and in 1967 a group of scientists and lawyers founded Environmental Defense (later Environmental Defense Fund, EDF) with the specific goal of enacting a ban on DDT. In response to an EDF suit, the U.S. District Court of Appeals in 1971 ordered the EPA to begin the de-registration procedure for DDT. After an initial six-month review process, William Ruckelshaus, the EPA’s first Administrator, rejected an immediate suspension of DDT’s registration, citing studies from the EPA’s internal staff stating that DDT was not an imminent danger. However, these findings were criticized, as they were performed mostly by economic entomologists inherited from the United States Department of Agriculture, who many environmentalists felt were biased towards agribusiness and understated concerns about human health and wildlife. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced the cancellation of most uses of DDT. Again, this caused controversy. Immediately after the announcement, both the EDF and the DDT manufacturers filed suit against EPA. The Agricultural Industry sought to overturn the ban, while the EDF wanted a comprehensive ban. The cases were consolidated, and in 1973 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the EPA had acted properly in banning DDT. During the late 1970s, the EPA also began banning organochlorines, pesticides that were chemically similar to DDT. These included aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, texaphene, and mirex.
It took 28 YEARS to get a likely cancerous and harmful chemical “banned” thanks to governmental and big agriculture objections while the media helped promote the pesticide as something that would be beneficial to your health. Sound familiar??? It sounds like the script has already been written for the COVID Vaccines. … “Trust the science,” I’m sure people clamored, as they sprayed DDT in their house and on their children.
- Cigarettes: Here we go again. Cigarettes became popular and mass produced around the time of the Civil War (1864 or so). In the 1930s-50s, in order to advertise for cigarettes, advertisers used the catchphrase ‘doctors recommend!’ In the 1930s, tobacco companies had an army of doctors ready to debunk you as a quack for even suggesting something as benign as a cigarette could give you cancer. The cigarette companies even paid doctors to appear in advertisements to reassure people that smoking is something doctors encourage. In 1956, a Surgeon General’s scientific study group determined that there was a causal relationship between excessive cigarette smoking and lung cancer. It wasn’t until January 11, 1964 that the public was given the true story via a definitive report linking smoking with lung cancer. The Terry Report claimed: ‘In comparison with nonsmokers, average male smokers of cigarettes have approximately a 9-to-10-fold risk of developing lung cancer and heavy smokers at least a 20-fold risk.’ The report held cigarette smoking responsible for a 70 percent increase in the mortality rate of smokers over nonsmokers. Smoking was officially named as the most important cause of chronic bronchitis, also pointing to a link between smoking and emphysema, and smoking and coronary heart disease. Not to even go into the nicotine addiction saga.
That was more than 92 YEARS to admit cigarettes were cancer causing for those wondering!
- Vioxx (former Merck NSAID): This is a doozy! Approved by FDA in May of 1999 after efficacy and safety tested in clinical trials. There were 9 studies of 13,400 people when, or soon thereafter, Vioxx was approved. More than 80 million people were prescribed the drug at some time after approval. In September 2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew Rofecoxib (Vioxx) from the market because of concerns about increased risk of heart attack and stroke associated with long-term, high-dosage use. Merck withdrew the drug after disclosures that it withheld information about Rofecoxib’s risks from doctors and patients for over five years, allegedly resulting in between 88,000 and 140,000 cases of serious heart disease (38,000+ died). Before it was withdrawn Merck had $2.5 billion in sales the year before. You mean a profit motivation influenced the science? HUH?! It gets worse.
In December of 1999 the government, DSMB (Data & Safety Monitoring Board) Chairman Michael Weinblatt knew about heart problems related to Vioxx. In February of 2000, Mr. Weinblatt fills out a financial disclosure form that he and his wife own $72,975 of Merck stock. Weinblatt agrees to a new consulting contract with Merck. “We are delighted that you have agreed to serve as a member of the VIOXX Multidisciplinary Advisory Board,” Merck writes in an invitation to Weinblatt to attend his first advisory board meeting. Weinblatt signs the new contract on March 6. It involves 12 days of work over two years, at the rate of $5,000 per day. Hmmm nahhh that’s not a conflict. This all seems fine to me! On the up and up! BUT it gets worse.
The VIGOR (safety data) paper to the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for publication submitted by Merck only included only 17 of the 20 heart attacks Vioxx patients had (that’s 15% not included for those counting). You mean they distorted the data? I doubt that’s happened in any other circumstance … oh yeah it has with Maddie de Garay, Brianne Dressen, etc. and the COVID Vaccine trials (see former blog post).
They said it was safe and used it for 5 years, but it wasn’t that safe! Imagine being a parroting idiot back then saying “trust the science,” Vioxx doesn’t cause heart attacks, you’re a crazy conspiracy theorist, while people taking the drug die of heart attacks? It’s almost like long-term injury data and what we see occur out in nature is important or something. Go figure.
- Swine Flu Vaccine: In 1976, there was a Swine Flu outbreak. A Swine Flu Vaccine was quickly created, but it unfortunately caused likely hundreds of cases of GBS (Guillain-Barre Syndrome) and led to 25-32 deaths (of course there could have been more that just couldn’t be linked to the vax). Unlike what we are seeing now from the media, a week into beginning the Swine Flu Vaccinations the papers had begun reporting troubling news from vaccine clinics in Pittsburgh: three apparently unexplained deaths due to heart attacks. But it was just one of many problems that plagued the “swine flu affair of 1976”, when a US president decided to rush a vaccine to the entire American population based on ill-founded science and political imprudence.
Lawsuits, side-effects, and negative media coverage followed, and the events dented confidence in public health for years to come. What happened might even have laid the foundations for the ‘mistaken’ anti-vax views and distrust in public health that would spread decades later.
In February of 1976, several soldiers at Fort Dix fell ill with a new Swine Flu. By October they were rolling out vaccines. The Swine Flu Vaccination program lasted about 2 months before it was suspended. For Fineberg, “the fundamental strategic blunder” was announcing a mass vaccination programme so early. It was premature, and locked politicians into a very visible commitment. 1 person died from the Swine Flu (which seemed to occur with the initial outbreak in February 1976) and there were only about 200 cases.
Never let them tell you all vaccines are always safe and successful. This was before the VAERS system, which has under reportings as is, so I can’t imagine how many vaccine injuries and deaths were missed.
- Earth Center of the Universe: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton all believed the sun was the center of the universe and not the earth. The consensus said otherwise. It took more than a century for heliocentrism to become accepted even after all of these scientific geniuses said it was so. Even if you’re smarter than everyone in the room, it’s difficult to change the group thinkers and powers that be from a consensus belief.
- More Drugs, Vaccines, and other things that caused harm (time on market before recalled or pulled): Accutane (27 Years), Asbestos (Not completely banned in USA, one of the few developed countries that hasn’t completely banned it), BioThrax – Anthrax Vaccine (Still Kicking), Bextra (4 Years), Cylert (35 Years), Duract (1 Year), Ergamisol (11 Years), LYMERix -Lyme Disease Vaccine (4 Years), Meridia (13 Years), Raptiva (6 Years), Rezulin (3 Years), Rotashield (1 Year+), Seldane (13 Years), etc. etc. etc. Nevermind bringing up the opioid epidemic.
Do the “trust the science” echoers still use most of this stuff? Many of these things were deemed safe via initial scientific consensus, BUT perhaps they learned more over time and decided these things weren’t actually safe. See how that works?
With time you can learn that things you thought were true, or safe, are not. Being so sure of yourself can make you very ignorant, especially if you’ve never considered and analyzed the alternative to your opinions (which most people seemingly have not). A lot of data related to COVID and the COVID Vaccines is tenuous at best for various reasons. Much of it is hard to collect. COVID Vaccine Injury data is some of the hardest to gather (even if “they” actually tried hard to gather it). What’s scientific about distorted data, omitted data, or horribly collected data? Not too much. Analyzation matters A LOT in these cases.
Trust the science is really a manipulative and moronic phrase if you understand anything about the medical industry and history. No one really has a reason or benefit to admit COVID Vaccine Injuries, certainly not the government, big pharma, the media, social media, doctors, or people in general, unless you are the vaccine injured person or are a family member of one (a family member that happens to not be gaslighting the injured person that is). It seems the powers that be would rather not know about the COVID Vaccine Injuries because what’s the benefit now that the push has long been in motion? The government can be sued, big pharma has profit motivations, and your doctor can be sued or can be ostracized for taking an unpopular position, that someone had a COVID Vaccine Injury, and potentially lose their livelihood for speaking up for these harmed individuals.
Think about that for a second if you’re so sure of yourself and how safe the COVID Vaccines “have” to be. The scientific consensus deeming something safe hasn’t held water many times in the past. Everything is safe, until you find out it’s not. Sometimes that takes time and sometimes that takes time and a lot of noise to get to a tipping point. There are plenty of glaring red flags out there pointing to the COVID Vaccines being more harmful than suggested, plus what your eyes, ears, and brain should be telling you about what’s happening right in front of your face and all around. I don’t trust those that constantly utter “trust the science” because I’m aware of history and I know they’re probably trying to manipulate. Don’t be content and think nothing more about it because of these people. Analyze deeper. Time will not be kind to these “trust the science” exclaimers.
(I had all the sources listed, but WordPress ate them. Also, had to rewrite my entire summary. Everything was taken by reputable articles or sources. I will try to find sources and post at a later time.)