Evolution of a Scientist: From Two-Handed Threat to Forked-Tongue Savior

Beloved by risk-modelers everywhere is Senator Edmund Muskie's quip about one-armed scientists.?In 1975, Muskie indicated that he fully understood science.?Admittedly, he didn't like how scientists presented science.?When soliciting a response from a scientist in his day, the legitimate scientist would frame the answer with objective honesty: "Well, on the one hand, 'X,' but on the other hand, 'Y'."?This was the provocation for Muskie to plea that someone please send one-armed scientists to Washington to answer questions. [1]

?That plea was answered in spades by EE David Jr. who used the quip as the springboard from which he launched his profoundly important questions in the Editorial Section of Science in 1975.[2]?So important, and so salient to this very moment in time, an extensive quote of EE David is warranted:

?A few months ago, Senator Muskie called for "one-armed" scientists. The occasion was a Senate hearing on the health effects of pollutants. Testimony from the National Academy of Sciences and other sources was not as definitive as the Senator desired. Witnesses insisted upon saying, "On one hand, the evidence is so, but on the other hand...." Thus, the call for one-armed scientists.

?This incident illustrates a fundamental dilemma of the scientist or engineer in communicating with his patron, the lay person. Laymen conceive of scientific fact as an absolute - shades of gray and uncertainty are not acceptable. Scientific investigations are to produce unequivocal answers, according to the popular notion. On the other hand, scientists know that there are very few absolutes that will stand up for long. Those few that do are enshrined as "laws of nature."

?Should we phrase our communications to hide our doubts and the gaps in our knowledge? Should we be assertive in the interest of bringing science to greater influence on affairs? Should we take account of the human trait that impressions, however incorrect, are seldom changed by fact but only by other impressions? That would be a risky and unwise strategy in my view.

?The modest influence of science in affairs today rests largely on its reputation for objectivity. To the degree that we abandon that virtue, we lose influence and are considered merely another self-serving, politically biased, ax-grinding constituency. We hear already the sinister thoughts from politicians that a reputable scientist can be found to support any side of any controversy, that scientists have used their disciplines to reinforce their political convictions, and that scientists are interested primarily in feathering their own nests.

?…

?It is indeed difficult to qualify properly theoretical results and their speculative implications, tentative conclusions from limited data, and social impacts without creating more uncertainty than previously existed and thereby weakening the basis for action. Yet that is the responsible path. We should be encouraging greater respect for the mystique of the scientific process and its role in uncovering reality. We should be emphasizing the complexity of important matters, their unknowability, and yet their promise for the future.

?Thus was the threat of the two-handed scientist?- objectivity and honesty.?The honest scientist would reveal the uncomfortable position that we do not possess the knowledge the laity impugns to us, and we do not possess the degree of confidence similarly impugned in that little bit that we do know.?

?As scientists, argues David, we have a sacred obligation to confess our uncertainties and embrace the counterfactuals and reasonable articulable alternatives presented to us and judge those alternatives on their own merits.?

?The threat has now changed and we in The West are entering a disturbing time that we haven’t seen since the days of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union -?Certain prominent scientists are beginning to believe that they alone represent "science" and that only they and those in their echo-chamber alone represent "truth" and that anyone who should dare suggest otherwise or claim the existence of alternatives or uncertainties are heretics; pariahs who should be shamed, personally ridiculed and silenced.[3]

?More frightening still, those same prominent figures have determined that where the facts don't support the desired narrative, then it is justified to fabricate data and that it is not just normative to lie about what they are doing, but it may even be obligatory to maintain that self-declared moral superiority as nicely expressed by Christine Stewart, Minister, Canada Environment:[4]

?No matter if the science of Global Warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.

?I know we have always seen some degree of lying coming from agenda-driven and grandeur-driven scientists, but usually, in the past, the lies were covered with shame, and the scientist who lied lived in fear that someday he would be discovered.???

?Simon Flexner at the Rockefeller Center during the polio pandemic of the 20th Century knew he was living a lie that set polio research back 25 years[5] – I suppose he just hoped he would dig his way out of it before being discovered, and besides he was the Editor in Chief of the prestigious Journal of Experimental Medicine thereby controlling all prevailing opinions by abusing the "peer-reviewed" process that blocked any alternative to his cherished views and then, like today, ensure that major funding would go only to those who affirmed his erroneous views.

?The Centers for Disease Control, knew they were lying during the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and so they did their best to keep it under wraps.??It is my opinion that Merck Pharmaceuticals could not have but known they were lying about the inclusion of their adjuvant during their Gardasil FUTURE2 trials,[6] but I believe they assumed they could hide behind claims of linguistic confusion and typographical errors if they got caught.?

?The likes of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Stephen Schneider,[7] James Hansen and the other Démiurges at the IPCC’s Climatic Research Unit (or is it the other way around?) knew they were misrepresenting the data and just assumed they could indefinitely hide in their Ivory Towers (which they did successfully until the devastating email leaks from the University of East Anglia blew “climate change science” into outer space for ever and collapsed the Global Warming house of cards).

?Yet, remarkably, even those exposed lies found their way into indefensible justification of the indefensible:

?“So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure political action and thus more federal funding.” Monika Kopacz?(06/04/2015) Program Manager at National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration [8]?

?Although the list of liars is long, it’s important to note that all the above individuals initially had one important component in common – they did not want to get caught lying.?Being caught in a lie was a bad thing and meant a loss of credibility.?But now, the Political Left has turned lying into a good thing – noble cause corruption is something to which we should aspire for moral high ground and if we engage in it, we are to be hailed as courageous heroes so long as we are peddling the politically correct cause.?(Naturally, lying is still bad if you are caught lying and you do not adhere to the correct political end).

?Now, the US EPA can proudly boast that, yes, its risk models for indoor radon have always been known to be a lie, but we won’t change them because "…if it just saves one life…"??The IPCC’s modelers can now proudly boast they are lying and finally admit they haven’t got a shred of evidence to support their climate change models, but that’s actually a good thing because after all, they are heroes who are trying to save the world from this massive (albeit, imaginary) threat of Climate Change and so they should lie.?

?Drs. Fauci and Redfield can now openly admit lying about facemasks and social distancing but that is OK, because, after all, it’s “for the greater good” (just like Lysenko argued) and they are just following the precautionary principle.

?Meanwhile, there is a sickeningly large and growing number of humans who are standing frozen like dazed deer in a car’s headlights repeating the dogma “… for the greater good…for the greater good…” until their dogma gets run over by that karma.

?Lying is bad enough.?Institutionalized lying is worse.?But surely, knowing that something is a lie, and condoning the lie in the guise of noble cause and self-seeking virtue signaling is the worst of all.

?“Science” isn’t in trouble – “science” has always been a blood-sport.?However, as we have seen in the far and recent past, a society that embraces the idea that “the ends justify the means” and pretends that predetermined political ends make “good science” is on the road to self destruction.

?The current lies about “Climate Change” and the efficacy of community face-masks and social distancing are becoming so horrendously convoluted that the only way the advocates can continue to maintain a straight face is that they have to engage in evermore convoluted gyrations to fabricate the appearance of data.[9]

?I can’t lie, this is all just my opinion…????????

?References:

[1] Peterson RW (Chairman Council on Environmental Quality), Two-Handed Scientists, Keynote Address National Conference on Health, Environmental Effects, And Control Technology Of Energy Use (February 9-11, 1976, US EPA No. 600/7-76-002).

[2] David EE, One-Armed Scientist?, Science Aug 29, 1975, Vol. 189, No. 4204.

[3] Ungar S, Bray D "Silencing science: partisanship and the career of a publication disputing the dangers of secondhand smoke" Public Understanding of Science, 14(1), 5-23. (2005)

[4] Calgary Herald, 1998, op cit: ?Bell L, Global Warming Alarmism: When Science IS Fiction, Forbes Magazine, May 29, 2012

[5] Williams G Paralyzed with Fear, 2013 p.103-105

[6] Holland M, Rosenberg K, Iorio E, The HPV Vaccine on Trial. 2018, p12

[7] Schneider S, Discovery, 1989

[8] Michaels PJ, Knappenberger, Lukewarming, 2016

[9] Talic S, Wild H, et al, Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis (BMJ 2021;375:e068302) October , 2021

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Additional Reading: ?discussions by CP Connell:

Holding Science Hostage?- How the fearful and powerful corrupt science for political gain.

Napoleon's Coffee - With or without a mask?Getting data to fit the Procrustean Bed.

How to Peddle Backward?- What happened to the 2020 Flu Epidemic? A summary of the US Crude Mortality Rate's refusal to cooperate with the popular narrative.

WHO thought this was a good idea...?(Comments regarding the December 1, 2020, "Mask use in the context of COVID-19".)

??The Failing Mask Cure Aid?a review of Bundgaard H, Bundgaard JS, Raaschou-Pedersen DET, et al, "Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers, A Randomized Controlled Trial" (Ann. Int. Med. Nov 18, 2020, https://doi dot org/10.7326/M20-6817).

?Don't be a Maskhole, Karen?A review of?Zeng N, Li Z, Ng S, Chen D, Zhou H,?Epidemiology reveals mask wearing by the public is crucial for COVID-19 control. (Medicine in Microecology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medmic.2020.100015):??

?Masks, and the new Doctor Schnabel von Rom: Review of Stadnytskyi V, Bax CE, Bax A, Anfinru P, The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets and their potential importance in SARS-CoV-2 transmission?(Approved by PNAS May 2020: https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2006874117)

Pathological Science?- Zhang?et al?and the PNAS: Zhang R, Annie Y Zhang L, Wang Y, Molinae M: Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19 (fast-tracked through the PNAS on June 11, 2020)

Defacing Mask Science?- Rossettie S, Perry C, Pourghaed M, Zumwalt M, "Effectiveness of manufactured surgical masks, respirators, and home-made masks in prevention of respiratory infection due to airborne microorganisms" The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles 2020;8(34):11–26

Masks - Don't look behind the curtain: Review of Vivek Kumar, Sravankumar Nallamothu, Sourabh Shrivastava, Harshrajsinh Jadeja, Pravin Nakod, Prem Andrade, Pankaj Doshi, Guruswamy Kumaraswamy "On the utility of cloth facemasks for controlling ejecta during respiratory events "

?Size matters!?A Brief Description of filtering mechanisms and size.

Materials v. Masks:?A review of Konda A, Prakash A, Moss GA, Schmoldt M, Grant GD, Guha S "Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks" (American Chemical Society, April 2020)

"Junk Science: In Favor of Community Face Masks - a return to Lysenkoism"?A review of: Jeremy Howard, Austin Huang,?Zhiyuan Li,?Zeynep Tufekci, Vladimir Zdimal,?Helene-Mari van der Westhuizen,?Arne von Delft,?Amy Price,?Lex Fridman, Lei-Han Tang, Viola Tang,?Gregory L. Watson,?Christina E. Bax,?Reshama Shaikh,?Frederik Questier, Danny Hernandez, Larry F. Chu, Christina M. Ramirez, Anne W. Rimoin Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 May 2020

Wishful Science?- A review of Anna Davies, BSc, Katy-Anne Thompson, BSc, Karthika Giri, BSc, George Kafatos, MSc, Jimmy Walker, PhD, and Allan Bennett, MSc Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic? (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;7:413-418)

If Manikins Could Fly…?A Review of Eikenberry SE, Mancuso M, Iboi E, Phan T, Eikenberry K, Kuang Y, Kostelich E, Gumel AB "To mask or not to mask: Modeling the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic" (Infectious Disease Modelling 5 (2020) pp. 293-308)

Review of?Cheng VC, Wong S, Chuang V, So S,?et al?"The role of community-wide wearing of face mask for control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic due to SARS-CoV-2" (Journal of Infection April 30, 2020;16:13)

Gassed Masks!?Reactivation of viruses and deoxygenation during mask wearing.

Masking the Truth?- A discussion of aerosols and droplets

We R0 New York City?- A discussion of the basic reproduction number.

The epidemic of ignorance:?Lessons from "Flattening the Curve" April 14, 2020

Think Tanks!?The Dangers of Group-Think April 13, 2020