It may be the "Chicken or the Egg" version of a grail quest, but how does the scientific method evolve into "The Science", a monolithic monotheistic religion/cult?
Thank you! You're my kind of gal, woof! ;) (I'm a girl dog, lol)
If I may, I'm going to use this to back my admonitions about the PCR... I can't imagine why you'd object, but I want to be respectful. I AM going to re-post this with a little note from me about the damned "TEST" nonsense... I'd like to keep re-posting this whenever I come across the misguided statements I see constantly about the "PCR Test" -- yes?
I can assure you that I'm no hero. Can't live up to that kind of reputation, but if i sometimes do something that others find helpful, i can live with that. Than you!!
I believe I found, when I watched this, that David Bowie did the cover version, and Motorhead was the original! I admit, until I looked up this song to put in on this thread, I'd never really paid any attention to Motorhead-- Didn't know anything about them!! So ... WOW. ;) Ain't life a continual surprise... xo
"They know what they are doing when they misapply the meanings"
I'm not so sure that they do. I suspect you'd be surprised by how completely incompetent some people are.
Assuming we recognise the witch hunts as a spontaneous public insanity, the participants who were basically living in a parallel world, didn't necessarily realise they were insane.
But you don't need them to understand, in fact, if they did understand it would be better because then they could stop when threatened.
Crazy people will never stop because they don't even know what they are doing wrong, and they can never apologise either.
Totally, for anyone under the top tier of the system, but the ones who create the manipulative meanings know what they are doing. It's mostly semantic games and crazy isn't capable of of bending reality intentionally, they are just bent
but otherwise, Yes. I agree for the entire sub hierarchy.
I'll agree that there must be some people who know that it's wrong but go along for the benefits.
But I suppose what I'm claiming is that there's four plausible scenarios wherever we find logical problems:
1. The problem emerged organically from the stupidity of the people managing the field, and to this day the in group has failed to realise their mistake, those who did left long ago.
2. The problem emerged organically, but at some point a faction emerged that only cares about profiting from it somehow.
They don't know, nor do they want to know, if what they are promoting is misleading or harmful.
3. The problem emerged organically, but at some point a faction emerged that knew it was terrible, but continued to promote it anyway to profit in some way.
4. The most nefarious option: it was always known to be terrible from the beginning and cynically astroturfed into existence with a marketing campaign designed to confuse and deceive.
I'm saying that I think 4 is rare. Or at least used to be rare.
Example, Vaccines, I don't see how they could have known 300 years ago that they were causing brain damage.
At the same time, they were also bloodletting, hot regimenting, and putting mercury in things.
They really didn't know what they were doing, and most of the terrible practices are now recognised as such, suggesting that the medical authorities may really have believed they were helping people.
Similarly it seems unlikely to me that the medically inexperienced rulers, politicians, and wealthy patrons of the time could have possessed vast medical expertise surpassing our current institutions. Scientists at the time didn't even know germs existed.
There was even a theory that insects and rodents spontaneously incarnated wherever food was left out.
I'm going to have to take a moment to take a look at entire industries using your 4 logical cases. You may be on to a really solid defining jig.
But with vaccines, i think the natural progression would have sent them to the dustbin of history to join your other examples, at the very latest by 1913. Richter's (I may be spelling that wrong) nobel prize for the discovery and use testing of anaphylaxis was the natural end to the vaccination industry, but rather than ending it, it was swept under the rug and weaponized at scale as the basis for the next century of public health. That is not an accidental progression. That is a shift with eyes wide open.
Indeed, which would correspond to No3, a group discovered the problem after it had already gained momentum and intentionally used it for their own goals.
It's interesting to note that I think this is around the time that vaccines were deployed globally. As far as I recall, providing vaccines to underdeveloped nations was not common until the 20th century.
Whereas communism, for example, was likely known to be awful almost from the very beginning.
I can't imagine that the powerful groups who threw heaps of cash into printing leaflets and spreading the ideology throughout Russia could possibly have been unaware of the damage they were doing.
I know communists today that don't see the inherent dangers in de-incentivization. The issue is more a matter of scale than any flaw inherent in the concept of sharing. Villages can function as communist collectives but anything larger leads to starvation and death due to social loafing and human greed, at least in my opinion.
And yes, it wasn't until after the "Use for Eugenics" capabilities of protein shot induced anaphylaxis made it to the global stage, that public health and global vaccination programs suddenly appeared and became the largest endeavors in human history.
So, I believe that puts it squarely in between 3 and 4. The rudimentary prototypes of vaccination had been experimented with but mass vaccination was known to do what it does at the time the concept was rolled out and the people rolling it out, did indeed know what they were doing and why they were doing it, but they misapplied the "Saves children" meaning to hide their eugenicist nature.
Thank you! You're my kind of gal, woof! ;) (I'm a girl dog, lol)
If I may, I'm going to use this to back my admonitions about the PCR... I can't imagine why you'd object, but I want to be respectful. I AM going to re-post this with a little note from me about the damned "TEST" nonsense... I'd like to keep re-posting this whenever I come across the misguided statements I see constantly about the "PCR Test" -- yes?
By all means, please do. And thank you!
Did I mention, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! ? ^_^
You did and thank you for that!
You are the hero of my day, maybe a month or two— or longer! xo ^_^
I can assure you that I'm no hero. Can't live up to that kind of reputation, but if i sometimes do something that others find helpful, i can live with that. Than you!!
Then you can maybe be okay with being a hero just for one day. ;) Cheers, m’dear.
I do llove the songs, so ok. Also love the original, but i got say this once is better https://youtu.be/J06yQb4lbPk?si=EETi5Pp9mhHkg6Tj
I believe I found, when I watched this, that David Bowie did the cover version, and Motorhead was the original! I admit, until I looked up this song to put in on this thread, I'd never really paid any attention to Motorhead-- Didn't know anything about them!! So ... WOW. ;) Ain't life a continual surprise... xo
Sorry I can't pledge money, I'm still wandering in the wilderness, but hopefully one day I will.
And I will plaster your page alllllll over my posts.
Cheers!
This substack will never have a paid membership tier. Everything ii post here is for as broad as possible consumption.
"They know what they are doing when they misapply the meanings"
I'm not so sure that they do. I suspect you'd be surprised by how completely incompetent some people are.
Assuming we recognise the witch hunts as a spontaneous public insanity, the participants who were basically living in a parallel world, didn't necessarily realise they were insane.
But you don't need them to understand, in fact, if they did understand it would be better because then they could stop when threatened.
Crazy people will never stop because they don't even know what they are doing wrong, and they can never apologise either.
Totally, for anyone under the top tier of the system, but the ones who create the manipulative meanings know what they are doing. It's mostly semantic games and crazy isn't capable of of bending reality intentionally, they are just bent
but otherwise, Yes. I agree for the entire sub hierarchy.
I'll agree that there must be some people who know that it's wrong but go along for the benefits.
But I suppose what I'm claiming is that there's four plausible scenarios wherever we find logical problems:
1. The problem emerged organically from the stupidity of the people managing the field, and to this day the in group has failed to realise their mistake, those who did left long ago.
2. The problem emerged organically, but at some point a faction emerged that only cares about profiting from it somehow.
They don't know, nor do they want to know, if what they are promoting is misleading or harmful.
3. The problem emerged organically, but at some point a faction emerged that knew it was terrible, but continued to promote it anyway to profit in some way.
4. The most nefarious option: it was always known to be terrible from the beginning and cynically astroturfed into existence with a marketing campaign designed to confuse and deceive.
I'm saying that I think 4 is rare. Or at least used to be rare.
Example, Vaccines, I don't see how they could have known 300 years ago that they were causing brain damage.
At the same time, they were also bloodletting, hot regimenting, and putting mercury in things.
They really didn't know what they were doing, and most of the terrible practices are now recognised as such, suggesting that the medical authorities may really have believed they were helping people.
Similarly it seems unlikely to me that the medically inexperienced rulers, politicians, and wealthy patrons of the time could have possessed vast medical expertise surpassing our current institutions. Scientists at the time didn't even know germs existed.
There was even a theory that insects and rodents spontaneously incarnated wherever food was left out.
I'm going to have to take a moment to take a look at entire industries using your 4 logical cases. You may be on to a really solid defining jig.
But with vaccines, i think the natural progression would have sent them to the dustbin of history to join your other examples, at the very latest by 1913. Richter's (I may be spelling that wrong) nobel prize for the discovery and use testing of anaphylaxis was the natural end to the vaccination industry, but rather than ending it, it was swept under the rug and weaponized at scale as the basis for the next century of public health. That is not an accidental progression. That is a shift with eyes wide open.
Indeed, which would correspond to No3, a group discovered the problem after it had already gained momentum and intentionally used it for their own goals.
It's interesting to note that I think this is around the time that vaccines were deployed globally. As far as I recall, providing vaccines to underdeveloped nations was not common until the 20th century.
Whereas communism, for example, was likely known to be awful almost from the very beginning.
I can't imagine that the powerful groups who threw heaps of cash into printing leaflets and spreading the ideology throughout Russia could possibly have been unaware of the damage they were doing.
I know communists today that don't see the inherent dangers in de-incentivization. The issue is more a matter of scale than any flaw inherent in the concept of sharing. Villages can function as communist collectives but anything larger leads to starvation and death due to social loafing and human greed, at least in my opinion.
And yes, it wasn't until after the "Use for Eugenics" capabilities of protein shot induced anaphylaxis made it to the global stage, that public health and global vaccination programs suddenly appeared and became the largest endeavors in human history.
So, I believe that puts it squarely in between 3 and 4. The rudimentary prototypes of vaccination had been experimented with but mass vaccination was known to do what it does at the time the concept was rolled out and the people rolling it out, did indeed know what they were doing and why they were doing it, but they misapplied the "Saves children" meaning to hide their eugenicist nature.