By Joy O’Curran
“The science has changed,” the so-called expert said as she faced the camera with a matter-of-fact expression. For so long, Americans have been hearing the mantra “follow the science” or “trust the science.” We have obeyed to our detriment.
We are discovering, through meta-studies by Johns Hopkins delving into a mountain of peer-reviewed reports, that, lo and behold, ALL the “scientific modeling” generated initially about COVID-19 has been proven to be egregiously wrong! Masking, social distancing and the lockdown of non-essential workers appear to have only helped by 0.2%, which, as any statistical nerd knows, is well within the margin of error. “Scientific modeling” is a process where data are generally fed into a computer program to attempt to predict an outcome. The problem with them is that there is no guarantee that all pertinent variables have been provided in order to determine an accurate conclusion and is, therefore, an approximation at best. Used in predicting earthquakes and weather patterns, modeling can become more accurate with more data and time, but for use with a new virus where the appropriate data are not available yet is simply imprudent. Why use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail?
The significant COVID policy differences between the states of Florida and California produced a data set that conclusively proved no measurable value in mandatory lockdowns, social distancing, school closures and mask-wearing, which corroborates Johns-Hopkins’ meta-study findings. People largely are smart enough to govern themselves on such matters. The scientists authoring the Great Barrington declaration proclaimed that fact early during the onset of COVID, along with a plan to voluntarily protect the most vulnerable and let the rest of us get back to work. The censoring of their valuable scientific perspectives has caused untold damage to our world.
Where, in our Constitution, is our government given the power to mandate social distancing or mask-wearing, determine who is or is not an “essential worker” or decide which scientists will be allowed to speak their minds publicly? Nowhere! In fact, our Constitution states in no uncertain terms that our government is specifically precluded from censoring speech. Benjamin Franklin famously said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The scientific method has 7 steps: 1) ask a question, 2) perform research, 3) establish a hypothesis, 4) conduct experiments to test your hypothesis, 5) make observations, 6) analyze the results and draw a conclusion, and 7) present your findings. Seems pretty straightforward and solid, right? Maybe, maybe not! What if your hypothesis is based on misunderstanding or bias? What if your experiments to test your hypothesis are poorly planned or executed? What if your data are corrupted or inaccurately documented? What if your observations or analyses are illogical, biased or just flat out wrong? That’s quite a few avenues for things to go horribly awry! And that list doesn’t even mention purposeful manipulation of the process to effect a desired outcome for financial gain, acclaim, or raw power and influence. Did you know, for instance, that mainstream media received almost $7 billion from big pharma in 2021 alone for advertising? That’s not science; it’s propaganda derived from filthy lucre.
We all know from personal observation that “nobody is perfect.” That is why common-sense use of transparently/completely released data on top of unbiased peer review is one hallmark of professional scientific practice. But even peer review is proving ineffective. So many of the peer-reviewed journals have proven themselves hopelessly biased in the last three years and unwilling to shake up the status quo even with unquestionably sound data from gold standard studies.
Science, according to so many in the field, is meant to be questioned. It is built to be scrutinized, reexamined, re-tested and either re-confirmed, or, more often, rejected for a more recent and up-to-date finding. There is no such thing as trust in science. That’s the point of science; evidence-based repeatable confirmation as opposed to trust. It has its uses and is not all bad. But science, as we have seen before our very eyes of late, is not the unwavering foundation of truth it has recently been made out to be. In fact, it has proven shifty at best, and possibly even a tool for large-scale population manipulation for nefarious purposes.
No, science is no good foundation. It’s too ever-changing. If you want a good foundation for truth, may I suggest a text that is millennia old, that has been the world’s top bestseller of all time, in who’s words can be found the gift of life Himself. A rock solid foundation of truth that, as of yet, none but One has seen it put to perfect use, and His outcome has made a miraculous way where there was no way before. This text holds life-changing truths that can be difficult to hear but are nevertheless steeped with everlasting, almost unimaginable love. One amazing truth within these pages that inspires trust is: “I am the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6). Or how about “in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2). What better place to get your information than from the unchanging, all truthful Creator Himself!
What would this world be like if we all strove to put His truths into practice? Sure, we would none of us succeed perfectly, but the closer we get, the better off we will all be. Why not conduct a study of your own on this assertion? Read it for yourself. The more you know Him, the more you trust Him. And THAT isn’t misplaced trust!
Science cannot even touch it!
Mrs. Joy O’Curran is a voracious Christian, adoring homeschooling mom and avid writer homesteading on a sub-rural two-acre Embassy for Christ. She enjoys caring for her family and her garden, and reading the Bible, Christian fiction (especially the old stuff) and conservative news from WND.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.