Is the claim of scientific consensus fraudulent?

[Lliam]

Keep in mind that 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists only represent those who are willing to risk their careers by speaking out.

Why would ethical, credentialed experts be subjected to intimidation for sharing their scientific findings? Isn't that how science is supposed to work?

And why would mainstream media never say a word about the existence of opposing opinions? Doesn't the public deserve to be made aware?

Apparently the public isn't considered too stupid to hear TV commercials about new drugs, or skewed information from people like Fauci and paid talking heads. But we're supposed to believe that people would be totally confused and unable to make rational decisions if they had access to all information about covid.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-covid-summit-declaration-iv/5780294

[DataOrganizer27]

This has always been the case in science unfortunately... Look through the history and you'll see so many scientists in various fields were laughed at and ostracized because of their beliefs or findings and are now revered like that never happened because they ended up being right.

Science is a constant fight, just like everything else that should be so simple, because of various reasons. Money being a big one, and power being intermingled. Some findings can lose companies millions, disprove another scientists theory, etc. No one wants to lose money or be discredited and handle it graciously anymore. They'd rather fight over it and spout a ton of shit to back themselves up.

[Anonymous]

This is how science has always worked, by academia mob rule. It doesn't matter what the actual evidence is, only what they say it is. Look at the history of electricity, cars, planes, healthcare, anything involving science and it's been the same way all along.

Look at the YouTube videos about the dangers of mammographies and how women are getting unnecessary mastectomies. The doctors who speak out against them have been run out of practice.

[Lliam]

That's true. Those with the money get to define the narrative.

[Anonymous]

Physicians don’t want to risk loss of medical licensing. Regardless of their personal beliefs, they must follow guidelines and ethics. The committee holds all power over physicians licensing and is a self governing body separated from federal government. Even if vaccines have known side effects or there are better alternatives, unless directed otherwise, they must follow guidelines and recommend vaccine to patients and public. In my personal opinion, it is obvious there are much better alternatives to covid vaccine such as monoclonal antibodies. However, I do not have the power to administer it and don’t want to risk lawsuit and licensing loss. I will simply follow the easiest path and recommend the vaccine.

[Lliam]

What you say is true. But then how much respect is due to physicians who uphold their Hippocratic oaths and actually put their patients before their incomes? That takes special ethics and courage.

[Opinion Owner]

According to the committee, they are the ones upholding the oath. It’s politics in medicine currently. Only those who have financial security and willingness to stand up to the politics are able to. Most physicians have lots of student debt, house bills, etc. But they do speak in inner circles and most physicians tend to agree about the current issues surrounding covid.

[TrueConfection]

Obviously purple can't make rational decisions on their own and need TheView to tell them what to think and say.

[Lliam]

ROFL Excellent!

[TrueConfection]

*people

Darn... I even fixed that typo and it still auto corrected it back to "purple" 🙄

[RealMarek]

It is definitely fraudulent. The only way they maintain the appearance of consensus is by intimidation and directing research funding to scientists who will give the correct answers.

[Lliam]

Bingo!

[888theGreat]

Global warming is a minority group of scientists. Most really don;t believe it , but they are threatened to say they do or lose their grants and ending their research. That is what the left does. Say what we tell you or pay the price. Same with social media , and controlling what people say online.

[RolandCuthbert]

You guys have lost all perspective and common sense.

If there is no such thing as consensus, then there is no such thing as truth, objectivity, or fact.

You guys pretend that these crackpot opinions are hidden from the public, when you destroy your own argument by posting these theories in youtube videos and articles. The problem is this is not about scientific curiosity or a search for fact. . .

this is about your politics.

And you lie about your intentions and your goals.

It is just disingenuous.

[Lliam]

LMAO
Go back to you safe space, dude. Thinking is scary.

[RolandCuthbert]

That's my point to you, you simply do not think before you post.

And you are not here pushing science. You are pushing politics. So stop lying.

[Lliam]

So doing research and being analytical is being "ideological", as opposed to being a cultist who allows mainstream media to tell you what to think because they are "trustworthy"? Don't look behind the curtain. DON'T look behind the curtain! Fake news! Fake news!

I wonder what you think my ideology is. Do you think I am stupid enough to believe politicians or for profit corporations who create manufactured consensus?

[RolandCuthbert]

But that's the point. Again, this is not based on research or being analytical. You speaking strictly from an established political ideology. But you lie and claim you are interested in scientific debate or discussion. It is why you attacked the idea of scientific consensus. Because if you can throw out the idea that the vast majority of scientists have to be believed, then any crackpot becomes an expert.

It isn't like you posted scientific research or proof. You just claimed that scientists hide dissenting opinions, then destroyed your own point by posting dissenting opinions. A scientist should only do what any expert in any field does. Post their expert opinion.

If you want to find some crackpot, they are easy to find. Because they are quite loud.

As for your ideology, there is only one that seeks to invalidate expert opinion.

[Lliam]

The point is, there IS no scientific consensus except the one that has been manufactured by false claims and censorship by pharma profiteers.

You seem to come at things from the POV that if you haven't heard of something, it doesn't exist.

The fact that, in your matrix world of propaganda, you haven't heard any scientific debate is proof science has been hijacked.

[Sevenpointfive]

if you think consensus = fact then you have no understanding of science

[RolandCuthbert]

Again, you don't even seem to understand your own point. You claim that I am saying "if you haven't heard something then it doesn't exist". Again, you just posted these supposed dissenting opinions. That's what is totally ridiculous about your position. These are your words, not mine. I actually know scientists. I know microbiologists. If you want, I can forward information for my friend's podcast. I am not like you. I did not graduate from youtube high. I went out and found scientists who have a perspective on pandemic.

What did you do? Did you find a scientist? Of course, not. You found perspectives that agree with your politics.

Then you pretend like I am the one spreading propaganda. Nah, if I make a recommendation, it will always point to experts in a particular field.

Yours won't have anything to do with expertise, except in the field of propaganda.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Sevenpointfive It is actually called peer-review.

[Lliam]

So just because something gets published that means that it's 100% accurate, can't be questioned, and ALL experts in the field accept it as fact.
Do you have any idea how science works? In fact, do you know how the peer review process works?

[RolandCuthbert]

Of course just because something gets published doesn’t mean it is accurate. That’s why we talk about peer-review. It had to be reviewed by peers in a given field.

If you want to talk science I can do that all day long. I post about science all the time. Though my field of interest is physics. I don’t push cockamamie theories like the electric universe or expansion theory. There have been publications. There have papers. But those theories don’t even comply with common sense much less established physical law.

And you are telling me that I don’t understand how science works. Nothing you post has anything to do with science. You only post about your politics.

Here is a post about science.

Why is Einstein so great? ↗

[Sevenpointfive]

you do know that peer reviewed articles published are sold for money in magazines/journals, right?

[RolandCuthbert]

@Sevenpointfive And? Do you know of any scientific work that is not for profit? What is wrong with you?

This is what I mean, you don't have an objection based upon science. You have one based upon politics. What you mean is this;

1. You disagree because you feel the forces behind the conclusion are political.

My response is, well invalidate the work based upon science. Not politics. My lady friend has worked in the research field for years. She ain't a millionaire. But she could be if she wanted to. For her, the compelling factor is the research itself. She has many publications. But there are many more profitable fields to engage in if she choose.

The weird thing is, crackpots like you are driving qualified folks from the field. Because who wants to be underpaid, while trying to do research to save folks lives, under constant threat because of crackpots and conspiracy mongers, who don't have the decency to challenge the work on the basis science and objective fact.

[Lliam]

@RolandCuthbert. You're the one who believes political narratives. You haven't bothered to listen to one scientist whose conclusions differ from the pharma narrative. I have. Yet you act like I'm pulling opinions out of my ass because I have some kind of ideological agenda.

It's obvious that you developed your opinions after being told what to think by the "experts" on mainstream media who never present data or research. You have NEVER done any actual open minded scientific analysis. You refuse to listen to scientists.

If you think censoring top global scientists is science, you aren't a scientist. You're a willfully ignorant ideologue. That's the reason for your emotional, knee jerk response.

[Sevenpointfive]

there's new research studies all of the time that invalidates the previous peer reviewed research

[RolandCuthbert]

I figured it out, I am talking to Pee Wee Herman. What's up dude!!!

Ideological agendas have nothing to do with science. And I am sorry about your hurt feelings. :D

But whenever you grow some balls, you can contact me and I can introduce you to some actual microbiologists who are the experts in this field.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Sevenpointfive Youtube is always invalidating scientists.

Funny how that works.

[Lliam]

@RolandCuthbert. I know, it's upsetting when an in depth interview gets posted on YouTube that goes against the mainstream narrative. Damn YouTube. 🤣🤣🤣 Damn free speech and scientific inquiry. It confuses the sheep.

Stay in your safe space, dude. Stick to your Church of Scientism where heretics are excommunicated and you can screech condemnation all you want.

[RolandCuthbert]

Cowardly trolls are not upsetting at all. Because as insane as you are you are not so crazy you would ever debate that in public. Because nothing you post has anything to do with science.

:D

[Lliam]

Your entire emotional response from the beginning is proof of your brainwashed state. It demonstrated irrationality, not inquiring intellect. Only a cultist would react that way.

[RolandCuthbert]

Emotional? Dude, I can literally see your spittle flying around in your posts.

When you get your ph. d in youtube, look me up.

[Lliam]

Far from being angry. I'm laughing at you.
Now go to your safe space. Breathe. Listen to NPR and relax.

[Sevenpointfive]

i don't think scientific consensus has anything to do with it. what's put on tv isn't real. why don't you ask your microbiologist friends and they'll tell you the same.

[RolandCuthbert]

Crazy people laugh all the time.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Sevenpointfive Whenever you wish to leave the anonymity of the internet, we can discuss this with actual scientists.

Until then, what makes you any different than a flat earther?

[Sevenpointfive]

i'm no different. i don't claim to know more than anyone else on this site

[Lliam]

@Sevenpointfive. LOL. That's the difference between you are RolandCuthbert.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Sevenpointfive
Well, we are talking about microbiology. And so you guys say, the experts are wrong. And I say, "go talk to a microbiologist". It isn't like they are hiding. But you don't do that. You go to youtube, conspiracy sites, and the deep web and you cite this stuff as "evidence". And you defend this by saying "all opinions are equal". If all opinions are equal in microbiology, then that should be standard for every field. Every person can pilot an aircraft. Every person can build a data center. Every person can perform brain surgery. Every person can be a nuclear physicist.

And I am just saying. . . maybe that's crazy.

[Lliam]

So if a world renown microbiologist was on YouTube explaining his findings, he would be a quack just because the site was YouTube?

Of course we know that a renown microbiologist would be welcome on CNN, MSNBE and NPR, and featured in the WaPo and NYT, even if his findings conflicted with the desired narrative.

What you're trying to justify, RolandCuthbert, is your unwillingness to investigate beyond mainstream media. You've bought into a narrative based on somebody's say so even though they presented no detailed research or reasoning. You're just upset that people don't believe in your trusted TV personalities. How dare they look for additional information and perspective on-line.

[Sevenpointfive]

roland. i'm not claiming or denying that i know more than anyone elses opinions. but i did take microbiology

[RolandCuthbert]

@Sevenpointfive Okay, I am going to explain this again, because for a second you seem rational.

You took a course on microbiology, that's splendid. I did not. I took courses on physics, mathematics and computer programming. I graduated with a degree in Computer Science. I dabble in physics and math. But when it comes to computer technology, I consider myself an expert. And anyone here at GaG an test that assertion at their leisure.
'
When I meet a person a person who has Ph. D in Microbiology, I tend to listen. Because I don't have much expertise. I won't be listening to the guy who took a course. I am going to listen to the professor who taught him. I am going to listen to the woman who teaches microbiology at the graduate and undergraduate levels. I am going to listen to the woman who's peer-reviewed research is published online. I have read one of her papers. And if I had an issue with something she told me, I would not just google search my way to the dark web and youtube. I would ask another microbiologist.

Here is one of her papers;

academic.oup.com/cid/article/63/2/151/1745282

So again, I can give you the address for her podcast, etc.. They have a chat where you can type in questions. The thing is, you won't be anonymous. I am not exposing this woman to anonymous internet trolls.

[Lliam]

@RolandCuthbert. Except the only "experts" you listen to are the ones who are selected for you to hear

THAT is the point. You don't want to hear microbiologists, virologists, or any other experts who challenge your deeply held beliefs. You just choose to make excuses for why they aren't "credible". Criticizing the fact that their interviews are posted on-line is the funniest one.

You are so married to your belief (not merely a point of view or opinion) that opinions you don't agree with are seen as heresy. You resort immediately to mockery and ad hominum attacks.

I know other people like you who, because they have a degree in something or another, think they are smart. But they are actually very dull, conventional, incurious and unaware. They are just like all the other sheep who do what they told. It's a crack up when they try to speak with authority about things they know nothing about.

[Sevenpointfive]

I browsed her abstract and lol'd. She's talking about LDT's (lab developed tests) being crucial. They sure as shit didn't help in detecting the coronavirus.

[Sevenpointfive]

Roland are you stuck in the multi-verse where you make sense in one world but are stuck in this one instead?

[Soteris]

Sorry pal, even if that was true and there was 17 000 physicians and medical scientists willing to speak out that is just a fraction of the scientific field and can basically be summarized as a "statistical anomaly".

So yeah, all of those people combined is not even enough to prevent the scientific agreement to round up to 100% and considering it is something that scientists and physicians all over the world can agree upon it is unrealistic to claim there is a world wide conspiracy because that is retarded.

[Lliam]

Actually, what's retarded is believing the WHO, CDC, Bill Gates and Fauci who all have vested interests in making shit tons of money on the jabs.

Have you ever looked at any research or evidence, or did you just take mainstream media's word that anything that doesn't come from them is "fake news"?

And you didn't explain why top scientists and medical professionals are being blocked, censored, slandered, threatened and punished. Doesn't that make the slightest bit suspicious?

Why are opposing scientific views not allowed? The whole point of science IS to question.

[Soteris]

My point is that it does not matter. You can't conspire with literally tens of millions of people across the entire world. If there was a malicious intent behind it then the worst case scenario would be that it is localized such as whatever nonsense Russian, Chinese or North Korean scientists sometimes are forced to say.

You can't do that on a global scale. Once everyone around the world agrees on something to this degree it has to be based on something more fundamental such as the truth or the truth as best we can figure out.

So yeah. It is physically impossible for there to be an organized conspiracy to block or punish top scientists around the world. As such the world wide scientific consensus is not compromised and all those people you mentioned earlier are pretty much just guaranteed to be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Science rarely comes to a consensus. The scientific process is one of critique and questioning the results.

[Lliam]

Exactly!

[TrueConfection]

Exactly! Only the physicians are risking losing their medical licenses for "spreading misinformation" if they question anything to do with the experimental covid vaccine.

[ArtemisSilver]

Yes. It's possible to fein scientific consensus to support practically anything.

It's why you need to be able to think for yourself and study a subject on your own.

[Sevenpointfive]

the American government and the deep state wants to keep you stupid

[Shamalien]

NO DURPI DURP DIRR THE SCIENCE MY FUCKING DURP BRAIN SCIENCE DURR DURKA DURPI DURR THE SCIENCE WHITE SUPREMACY RACIST HOMOPHOBES EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!

- the npc brain when confronted with this

[exitseven]

democrats call everything that does not fit their agenda "disinformation" and everything they believe in "settled science".

[OddBeMe]

1) scientific consensus is how we’re texting on the internet
2) your side has sent death threats to Fauci and other scientists working on Covid. Why?
3) your side makes them afraid or intimidated.

[Lliam]

Those claims are too stupid to even address.

[OddBeMe]

Because you can’t deny them. Ok fine.

[Lliam]

They are too shallow to bother with.
They are examples of the mental gymnastics some people with perform in order to avoid feelings of cognitive dissonance.

Don't strain your brain. Go back to your safe space. It'll be okay.

[OddBeMe]

Does your name really have double L’s?

[anylolone]

Any claim of scientific consensus is fraudulent.