Posted on 07/07/2021 9:50:35 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
Before we continue, we want to be clear: we support the widespread deployment of coronavirus vaccines. We both were vaccinated as soon as we were eligible. But, we worry that bias can shade interpretation of evidence where scientific uncertainty remains.
Over the last year, one message has been clearly emphasized: trust science. Evidence, and only high-quality evidence, will form the basis for policy. How has this influenced the coronavirus vaccine campaign? On the one hand, there has been strict adherence to scientific rigor when it fits the desired narrative. On the other hand, scientists may differ in how they interpret the science. For example, some insist treatments are only "evidence-based" when they were evaluated in a double-blind randomized clinical trial and applied using protocols that exactly mirror the research studies. Others are willing to accept evidence from modeling exercises based on questionable assumptions. Yet, when advocating for greater acceptance of vaccines, the scientific standard is far from uniform. When communicating with the public, the same scientists may apply different standards depending on whether study conclusions fit the desired message.
Why would the world's greatest scientific thinkers apply the "good science" label so inconsistently? Perhaps the best explanation is what psychologists call confirmation bias, which is the tendency to interpret observations or data in a manner consistent with previously established beliefs and values.
(Excerpt) Read more at medpagetoday.com ...
No it’s not confirmation bias. It’s COMMUNIST LIES.
I think it’s a lot more sinister than some silly psychological bias.
China want’s us dead without them having to fire a shot.
Satan wants the same thing.
By law every side-effect must be listed. Hell, you can not advertise any drug, no matter how safe without listing possible side-effects by law. This holds especially true for experimental treatment drugs (which the vaccines are).
Every promotion by law has to list possible side-effects (the law is being ignored).
Ask yourself these questions:
1. Do human beings always make rational decisions?
2. Are human beings greedy?
3. Are human beings petty and vindictive?
4. Are our leaders human beings?
“Over the last year, one message has been clearly emphasized: trust science.”
If you “trust science”, you don’t understand it. Properly practiced, it’s an inherently skeptical process, not a body of undisputable truths or dictates established by an enlightened elite. If it were otherwise, we’d likely be treating Covid with bloodletting and incense, and would know that the Sun and the stars were embedded in crystalline spheres that rotate around the Earth. And that would continue until the most influential “Scientists” felt brave or bored enough to try something new.
I think the overarching problem is the current idea that We Must All Think As One.
Dissent is evil and cannot be tolerated.
Everyone needs to take the jab, and it’s a problem if you don’t.
Says who?
This is not in any way an existential crisis for humanity. Some take the jab, some don’t. Some live, some die. Things work out either way.
But nooooooooooooooooo. The other side wants 100% agreement. Everyone has to do everything their way because diversity of thought and independent behavior is double-plus ungood.
I see the “trust science” and “science is real” signs all over alongside all the other virtue signaling garbage on lawns. Half the country is brainwashed and true/real science is dead and is political.
Use the word “vaccine” and the medial establishment genuflects.
Seen it here on FR.
Laws are for little people
Groupthink and Stockholm Syndrome
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.