Science Council: The God Who Failed

The views expressed in opinion pieces are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the editorial staff.

Posted on July 28, 2022


Science, scientists…

These terms come up again and again in arguments and conversations. Appealing to science is to guard against a strong argument but many people, for whom the term epistemology relates, I bet, to philately, do not deprive themselves of it…

epistemology, philosophy of sciencehas more than ever to teach us the objectives and the methods.

What is science?

How to prevent it from sinking into its recurring fault, scientism, this scientific religion. Heidegger said it, following Nietzsche. Man killed God. He took away spirituality with a laudable goal of rationality, but his new God became rationality. Certainly, long live rationality, but should we prostrate ourselves before God science, venerate his holy word and submit without contesting or should we take science for what it is, an all too human human construction?

The scientific council spoke widely and I largely ignored their statements. I confess this, so that I may be forgiven for any possible inaccuracies. From the start, I considered that the epidemic threatened almost exclusively the elderly and at risk. I have always known that the hypothesis of a submergence of all of our resuscitation services was totally far-fetched. I always wanted to believe that the epidemic, like the previous eight since 1895, would last two to three years. The patients crossed in my establishment proved me right.

The few rare deaths not belonging to the group of elderly men obviously oblige us to put covid in a different box from that of the flu, but 99.6% survival does not relate to bubonic plague.

Minister Olivier Véran, evoking an unfortunate 28-year-old young man swept away by the virus, committed a serious fault, which would not be forgiven to any practitioner in office. Or else I can terrorize any victim of urolithiasis, i.e. 10% of men and 5% of women, by evoking a mortality probably similar to that of covid. I will get them to submit but is it really ethical? I work precisely to obtain the opposite, appeasement.

But the scientific advice in all this?

Let’s return briefly to epistemology. In medicine, we practice theEvidence Based Medicine. Data is studied, evidence is established and levels of evidence determined.

When, as with lithiasis, the pathology strikes 10% of men, high-level evidence abounds. If it is an orphan disease, it is alas the dearth. The practitioner, like the patient, must compose. In the case of an emerging disease, such as covid, no publication comes to support the arguments. Epidemiologists obviously master the management of these situations (thus the remarkable management of Ebola) but let us grant them a margin linked to uncertainties.

The average Beijinger has elevated the scientist to the rank of divinity. Don’t forget… Divinity is never wrong. One thinks of Kipling and the Man who wanted to be king. A mere mortal is designated God until his blood flows, exposing to his worshipers his unfortunate bipedal condition. Watch out for the fall…

Science being in perpetual construction, certain authors oppose divergent theses, which is their role. The Beijing ranks them among the heretics, the skeptics, forgetting that skepticism is the highest virtue of the scientist. Science does not know clans. It does not evaluate people or institutions but data and it is only on these that attention must remain focused.

And according to Karl Popper, who enacted eight criteria for classifying a statement in the science category, said statement must be refutable. If it isn’t, then it slides into the metaphysical religion drawer. The famous Einstein/Bohr estrangement perfectly illustrates the hesitations of science, which benefits as much from its errors as from its advances. No one knows the final appearance of the building, which, brick by brick, is being built over the centuries…

Sometimes it takes decades to get an answer. In a nutshell, let us remember that Einstein, who was wrong in 1935 about quantum entanglement (he published the famous EPR article), enjoyed a consensus among public opinion. Without his skepticism, he would never have revolutionized physics in 1905.

In the sixties, John Stewart Bell, another brilliant physicist, wrote an article aiming to propose a method making it possible to decide between the thesis of Einstein and that of Bohr. It was published in a journal peer reviewedanother foundation of modern science, with undeniable qualities but with embarrassing failings, which was undertaken as early as the 19th century.

A group of designated experts must validate a publication before it is published in a prestigious journal. Sometimes a falsified test article is accepted. Another time, the same article is here accepted once, refused another. Here again, Beijing has no hesitation: the article is false if not peer reviewed.

You don’t even need to read it. It is complex to form an opinion from source data, but to transfer the entire burden of science to a few, before submitting unconditionally to their conclusions, is risky. Some will have understood my insinuations but the conclusion remains: caution…

Medicine does not progress by groping nor by coffee grounds but by proof. Beware of the most obvious trap: correlation is not causation. Just like for justice, otherwise we could all be imprisoned one day on the pretext of suspicion.

In the absence of proof, the scientific council issued opinions, yielding on occasion to risky correlations. I bet that the practitioners in charge were competent in their field but competence does not imply power of divination. Their specialty is often questioned in the comments, as if only the specialist could approach his specialty.

Another unfortunate modern shortcoming… An academic masters bibliography reviews. He knows the method and he knows the medicine. In another area, the climate, when I dare to express opinions, I am invariably referred to my condition as a urine professional. I would not have the right to express myself on any other subject.

I answer each time: if a climatologist tells you that tobacco kills, believe it! If only the specialist has a say in the matter, science turns into a church where people come to receive the word of the knowledgeable… We always come back to it. My colleagues have been wrong sometimes but that is part of the process. They were victims of the atmosphere and the weight of their responsibilities. Some suffered the center effect. The disease was, like any epidemic, threatening in the regions of social mixing, large cities and areas of confluence.

The Parisian bosses certainly did not have the same point of view as that of their colleagues in the many regions spared. They have certainly come under political pressure, overtly or not.

In the light of the declarations of certain members, the political influences pre-existed: discrimination and toutezetous with the program… They sometimes saw dangled windfalls or suffered their own vanity. Sometimes the internal struggles against named practitioners made me feel ashamed. I don’t care about the supporters of these settling of scores because I bet they weren’t scientific.

Have they betrayed their duty? No. Did they show themselves to be human? Yes, sometimes too much. They were asked to remain scientific but, lacking the precious evidence, they sometimes fell into the faults described. That said, they weren’t really on the job.

Sometimes overheard, most often politely listened to or coldly dismissed, they exposed themselves and paid the price… They are the ones who are pointed out, but the controls remained in the hands of technocracy and its now famous underlings. private contractors. It is to them that we must turn because they are the sole decision makers.

The finding is rather distressing. First of all, medically. We panicked in order to submit, which is ethically unworthy. Thinking we had the ultimate weapon, we divided an exhausted population. I have no problem with the vaccine but I still think it should be reserved for patients at risk.

By naming the outlaws, the antivax, the heretics, we made some very good people tense up, justly worried. The atmosphere was heavy and, without sharing them today, I take the anxieties with empathy. I admit I was scared once the needle was under my skin.

In this area, politicians and certain commentators have shown themselves to be inhumane. And they are the same ones who teach us the art of not discriminating… Was the objective to obtain consent for vaccination or to impose lessons of virtue on the donkeys, drawing down on them the lightning, like the did the president shabbily?

Our politicians suck at science and they have proven it to us once again.

They’re just sniffer plane buyers. They are the ones who are closing nuclear power plants, at a time when energy is sorely lacking, to replace them with windmills. That the Minister of Health knew the Faculty of Medicine has nothing to do with it. He was a politician, not a doctor. Pass, excessive PCR, grotesque regulations, nothing was missing.

Enough to fuel comic literature for an entire century… Yet: considering the bill of 100 billion euros, we could laugh out loud. A patient judge from the commercial court told me recently that the administrations have eased the collection but 230,000 are now to be liquidated. As for the PGE bubble…

France is dying but she is immortal, of course. This frenzied interventionism, which has only aggravated the consequences of the epidemic, has been slowly hampering us for too long. Kings got their power from God, technocrats get it from technology. They are the engineers of our lives and the nation, without them, would go sideways… How long will these infatuated people continue to behave as if they were able to solve problems that are beyond them?

The sovereign functions are already not bad. The epidemic was also an opportunity to see the deplorable state of our health system, which I experienced first in the rankings when I started my studies. So the income of the French equaled that of the Swiss. The French system has fallen below tenth place, on a list at the top of which Switzerland now peaks.

In our establishment, we bring together a crisis cell on a daily basis to determine whether we will have enough nursing staff to work the next day. And sometimes it’s no and interventions are canceled.

And what about everything else, justice, police, army, diplomacy?

Where to find hope, in a nation in ruins which intends, moreover, to ruin itself even more in the name of scientific hypotheses which are also questionable and disputed? Misery embarrassed power in the past: here it is called for, objective 2050… Alas, the examples of Sri Lanka or Holland hardly cause for optimism.

The solution ?

Ten years of effort. Less charges, taxes, regulations, codes, technocracy, nuisance of a power interfering in any sector. freedom and responsibility.

I am furious that after such a demonstration of incompetence, ignorance and sufficiency, this conclusion is on everyone’s lips. Haven’t you seen enough? Let’s free ourselves from the yoke of this technocracy to bring it back to its only role, the tar on the roads and the public toilets in the village. The rest we take care of…

We want to thank the author of this short article for this awesome material

Science Council: The God Who Failed

Explore our social media profiles along with other related pages