‘Trust the Science’ is the mantra of academic gatekeepers and is a narrative control tactic

I agree with this quote by Stone Bryson, and I’ll tell you why

Stone Bryson

I appreciate the way you phrased this. It inspired me to write this piece, rather than simply comment. Let me know what you think!

In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, there is one very specific and highly consequential instance of misconduct by former heads of the NIH and the NIAID, Fauci and Collins, to draft, publish, and promote a scientific paper that was intentionally misleading, where the sole purpose of this scientific literature was to dissuade people from questioning the origins of Covid-19, and to discredit assertions that Covid-19 was accidentally leaked from a lab in China. We know this after years of investigative journalism and congressional investigations.

Therefore, it is of grave importance that we seek to avoid this type of acedemic/scientific dishonesty, as it had a profound and lasting impact on the perception of legitimacy the average person holds towards the scientific community at large.

As someone who does believe in the sciences, the scientific field at large, and those who dedicate their life to the pursuit of furthering our scientific interests, I believe it’s absolutely vital to push back on the notion that “trusting the science” is something anyone should ever do.

Trusting the science in this context suggests that you should not question the authoritative determinations of a handful of scientists who made conclusions about something, because it would put other people at risk. This flies in the face of a core aspect to conducting research and establishing industry standards for the application of said sciences. If science was actually being practiced in the is instance by those involved—again the literal heads of our two most powerful and influential scientific institutions in our country, arguably the world—there would have been an open dialogue about their findings, and others would have put forth their own research backed conclusions to either confirm or question the conclusions made in the ‘Proximal Origins of SARS-COV-2’.

Now let me remind you that even if there were counter arguments and hypotheses presented following the release of this “scientifically flawed” paper, they were actively sought out and suppressed by request of government actors, intelligence agency officials/agents, and NGO’s that include Academia, the relatively new election integrity project, and other NGO’s who state their mission is to protect democracy, public health, national security, and the integrity of our electoral process from those who seek to undermine it, whether by nature of promoting narratives or information that runs counter to the government sanctioned messaging.

In this specific instance, we now know—by admission from Dr Collins, the former head of NIH—that this was done to protect the prospects of future GOF research, and to protect the reputations and interests of those involved in, or who had rubber stamped the research that is now accepted as having been the MOST LIKELY cause of the pandemic.

This is all to say…

Without the questioning of the science that was presented to the world as definitive and accurate, we would likely have never found the truth, or the closest thing to the truth that we can expect to get from this scenario. It would have allowed for a provably unscientific paper to be the conclusive, end-all-be-all in terms of where COVID may have originated from. It would have likely resulted in the obfuscation of the fact that the moratorium on GOF was being skirted, and that this arguably dangerous, and possibly species ending research was being conducted in “secret” under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci and his Colleague, Dr. Collins. It would have obscured the fact that we have research facilities conducting this type of research within our own borders, and that it’s not JUST China doing things in a rogue and dangerous manner. It would have set in place a phony and politically motivated understanding of something that was of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE to understand so that we could adjust where necessary to prevent future global crises.