What is “science”?
SCIENCE:1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.4. systematized knowledge in general.5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.6. a particular branch of knowledge.7. any skill or technique that reflects a precise application of facts or principles.
Science is a set of facts and principles gained from knowledge and study into the experience and observation of the physical/material world.
FACTS. TRUTHS. PRINCIPLES.
I know I’m not the only one questioning why “science” seems to be changing at the whim of a small few. And who do we have at the helm of it all? Especially during these very confusing/controversial covid times?
Anthony Fauci, NIH, WHO, FDA and the CDC. (All “gold-standard, leading experts” that ironically are shifting, changing, removing what “science” has defined throughout all these years.)
Even his very own statements about science should shed some light on what science is supposed to be: “He added, “So, when they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it, who’s talking about science, that there are some people who just don’t believe that — and that’s unfortunate because, you know, science is truth. … If you go by the evidence and by the data, you’re speaking the truth.”
– Anthony Fauci lied about masks; now he complains that people ‘distrust authority’
Yes. “If you go by the evidence and by the data, you’re speaking the truth.” – not if you’re making it up and changing it as you go along because it suits a particular agenda.
Let’s see how many times Mr. Dr. Expert Anthony Fauci and the co-horts of this agenda were caught lying or “changing” goalposts/rules and even the very definition of what herd immunity means (keep in mind, this is just a very small sample out of many) :
Wearing a mask:
1. Feb. 17 (2020): Fauci told USA Today that wearing a mask is for the infected to protect others. “Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask.”
– The Fauci Timeline — Sorting Fact From Fiction
2. March 2020: “When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face,” said Fauci at that time.
– FLASHBACK: Dr. Fauci claims masks don’t provide COVID protection, only help people ‘feel…better’
3. In June 2020, Fauci admitted that he and other public health officials had downplayed the benefit of masks — with some even advising against wearing them — because of a fear of equipment shortages for front-line health care workers.
– Dr. Anthony Fauci Admits Shifting Goalposts on ‘Herd Immunity’
4. September 2020: “At that point, which is now months and months ago, I have been on the airways, on the radio, on TV, begging people to wear masks. And I keep talking in the context of wear a mask, keep physical distance, avoid crowds, wash your hands and do things more outdoors versus indoors.”
5. By October (2020), Dr. Fauci had completely reversed course on mask-wearing, saying that it may be time to impose a nationwide mask-wearing mandate, something he termed “universal mask-wearing.”
“Well, if people are not wearing masks, then maybe we should be mandating it,” Fauci told CNN’s Erin Burnett Oct. 23.
– FLASHBACK: Dr. Fauci claims masks don’t provide COVID protection, only help people ‘feel…better’
From a personal opinion: I want to point out how adamant Anthony Fauci is about flouting wearing a mask, yet here, he is not wearing one throughout his entire speech. Doesn’t he realize how far his droplets are landing? Not to mention that at the 19 minute mark we see press secretary Jen Psaki take the stand, without wiping down the potentially dangerous, deadly virus that Anthony Fauci could have been dispensing all over the podium.
Including that is the fact that Jen Psaki then takes her face masks (because, “double the protection”…) off as well, and flips it mouth-side down on the very podium that expert Anthony Fauci was just speaking at and spreading his germs. At the very end of the video, Jen is seen putting the mask back on, after letting it sit and fester on top of the stand that Dr. Fauci was just speaking over.
What has our common sense been reduced to?
6. Earlier on in the pandemic, Fauci had said the United States would need 60 to 70 percent of people to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity, according to the Times.
– REPORT: Fauci Admits He Lied Because ‘Country Wasn’t Ready’ To Hear The Truth
7. Dr Fauci’s estimate for reaching herd immunity has been steadily inching up, @nytimes’ Donald McNeil Jr reports. Fauci told us at last week’s @CNBC #HealthyReturns that it may be 75-85%. https://t.co/j18nUYZ3cV pic.twitter.com/hIKewMAFim
— Meg Tirrell (@megtirrell) December 24, 2020
– REPORT: Fauci Admits He Lied Because ‘Country Wasn’t Ready’ To Hear The Truth
8. “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Fauci told the Times. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ʻI can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”
“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”
– Fauci doubles down after being confronted over startling admission that he deceived the public about herd immunity
We even have the WHO, who is constantly changing / “updating” their definition for what herd immunity means depending on the alleged “new” results and information that they determine from their studies.
Another change, once again, on December 21, 2020:
Very suspect, Anthony Fauci and WHO. Very suspect.
And perhaps because of this exposure, they felt the need to “clarify”, this time taking into account not only the vaccines that they heap enormous praise and focus on, but this time alluding to the Samaritan goodness of their hearts that they do not feel as if herd immunity should be achieved by exposing people to the virus. But instead by using the vaccine. (Because they care so much.)
The question then is, who is going to protect us from the vaccine if/when it turns out (since new information comes out all the time…) that the vaccine was not as “safe and effective” as they once thought? Their inclusion that “WHO will continue to update these answers as new information becomes available.” leaves the door wide open to skirt away from any responsibility of the side effects of the vaccine due to not enough foresight because of the ever-evolving nature of this new virus and the vaccine that has yet to be studied thoroughly for long-term safety and effectiveness.
The argument then possibly becomes that their sincere effort to “save humanity” from this deadly pandemic overrides the vaccine effectiveness because of the huge demand to save the population (let’s not get into the depopulation agenda of Bill Gates – in which he and Anthony Fauci are close friends – and others… although, by all means, please research this to gain more information) and that they honestly, truly, genuinely sought to cure us all from this virus. The tragic outcome of the vaccine that they “earnestly” thought was for the benefit of the people would be unprecedented and the blame would then go to, again, the changing nature of the virus and/or our immune response system not adhering well to their honest-to-goodness efforts.
Sorry, but, I’m not buying it.
Asymptomatic vs. Symptomatic
9. January 2020: “But the one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory viruses of any type asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare symptomatic transmission that may transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.
– Here Is a Video of Fauci Explaining in January 2020 That Asymptomatic Transmission Is NEVER the Driver of Outbreaks
10. June 2020: Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove: “We’re constantly looking at this data, and we’re trying to get more information from countries to truly answer this question,” she added. “It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.”
Anthony Fauci: “We know from epidemiological studies they can transmit to someone who is uninfected even when they’re without symptoms,” Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Wednesday. “So to make a statement to say that’s a rare event was not correct.”
– Fauci says asymptomatic coronavirus transmission is possible following WHO confusion
11. September 2020: “I can tell you right now that we should be testing more and we should be testing asymptomatic people,” Fauci told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Thursday night. “Take that to the bank and trust me on it.”
– CDC reverses course on testing asymptomatic people for Covid-19, again
The PCR / covid tests:
12. Yet a PCR test instruction document from the CDC that had been revised five times as of July 13, 2020, specified testing and interpretation of the test using a Ct of 40. On September 28, 2020, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases from Jaafar et al. had asserted, based on patient labs and clinical data involving nearly 4,000 patients, that a Ct of 30 was appropriate for making public policy. An update to the CDC instructions for PCR testing from December 1, 2020, still uses a Ct of 40.
– The WHO Finally Updates Its COVID-19 Testing Policy… One Hour After Biden’s Inauguration
13. Anthony Fauci (July 16, 2020): “…If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”
– Fauci Himself Admits Covid PCR Test at Over 35 Cycles Is Deceitful, Worse Than Useless
14. Article published on September 30, 2020: The reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test used to identify those people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses a nasal swab to collect RNA from deep within the nasal cavity of the individual being tested. The RNA is reverse transcribed into DNA and amplified through 40 or more cycles, or until virus is detected. The result is reported as a simple “yes” or “no” answer to the question of whether someone is infected.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials state they do not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own threshold ranges.
Any test with a cycle threshold (CT) above 35 is too sensitive, says Juliet Morrison, PhD, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive.” A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less.
Yikes. There is so much wrong with these examples. Who is in charge, again? The labs/manufacturers can set their own threshold? Yet officials wouldn’t recommend anything higher than 35? Or even 30? Even Anthony Fauci, who finally wasn’t lying about the amount of cycles? Yet at what threshold were all of these tests being done to crank out all of these false positives that are, again, just now being addressed and changed? The FDA recommended threshold of 40 or as many as it takes “until virus is detected“?
Then pair that up with what Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test had to say:
“I don’t think you can misuse PCR. [It is] the results; the interpretation of it. If they can find this virus in you at all – and with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”
– Dr. Fauci admits the PCR test for coronavirus is all but useless as it is administered in the US
15. Dr. David Samadi (January 21, 2021): The World Health Organization has now released guidance to laboratories around the world to reduce the cycle count in PCR tests to get a more accurate representation of COVID cases.
The current cycle was much too high and resulting in any particle being declared a positive case.
The WHO notice concluded by suggesting that “most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”
– World Health Organization updates PCR test guidelines
So apparently all this time they weren’t assessing all of the other necessary relative data needed to confirm a positive case, and instead ran as many cycles as they possibly could to detect the virus – against the numerous prompts of the medical community who said all along that this was a huge oversight – meanwhile suspiciously cranking out positive numbers for the media to drool over. And as some people have pointed out, all of these new changes are “coincidentally” just in time to greet the new president as an illusion of control and miraculously reduced numbers of positive coronavirus cases. (Or it’s due to the fantastic work of the rushed vaccine – or both.)
16. The Virology Journal – the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health – published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading – get ready for this – “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) Write the researchers, “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”
So why has Dr. Fauci minimized and dismissed HCQ at every turn instead of pushing this thing from jump street? He didn’t even launch clinical trials of HCQ until April 9 (2020), by which time 33,000 people had died.
– Fauci knew about HCQ in 2005 — nobody needed to die
17. August 12, 2020: Since the start of the pandemic, hundreds of doctors have successfully used hydroxychloroquine to treat patients symptomatic of COVID-19 infections. In frustration at the media negativity about this safe, effective medicine American doctors have sent an open letter to Dr Fauci raising their concerns.
– Doctors Send Open Letter to Fauci About HCQ COVID Cure
Other doubts from multiple outlets about the supposed “expert” decisions of those in charge:
Up until COVID hit in 2020, neither WHO nor the CDC had ever considered a single positive PCR test sufficient for diagnosing viral infection.
Turns out during all 4 epidemics prior to COVID-19 since 2000, CDC & WHO were concerned about the high false-positive rates for PCR tests & issued guidelines to try and minimize them. But for C19, both somehow forgot all about PCR false-positive rates.🤔https://t.co/XC4w46G62V pic.twitter.com/xfxXedyt9j
— Michael Thau (@MichaelThau) August 30, 2020
Sen. Marco Rubio just called out Anthony Fauci in a penned piece posted on Fox News as a lying liar who arrogantly used his position as the nation’s top infectious disease bureaucrat to lie to the American people “in order to manipulate their behavior.”
“[P]lacing blind faith in unelected celebrity scientists,” Rubio warned, “has its limits, and we must not be afraid to call them out when they’re caught overstepping their legitimate authority.”
Also, the nation’s testing data has been called into question, as this week the CDC and 11 states were forced to admit that they were mixing testing results in a way that might make the data less useful in assessing the rate of the disease’s spread.
If it isn’t the nation’s mood, nor the science, could it be… politics?
Mea culpa: I spent a lot of time on these here digital pages defending Dr. Anthony Fauci. Brother, was I wrong. Fauci is a stone-cold liar. And if he’s not a stone-cold liar, his only defense is that he is a fraud. Either way, shame on him … and me.
Why all the changing rules contradicting those of other scientists/doctors?
One would think if an expert in his field had any real experience and knowledge about viruses, transmission, etc., that their “rules” would not keep changing based on the “popular view” or pressure to conform to what politics demands. With the “leadership” blaming all of the changes on this new virus/pandemic and that they have to adjust their position based on new findings/studies about it, it makes one wonder why their (the leading expert’s) initial view was so out of touch compared with the MANY other doctors/scientists who were saying all along that masks don’t work, lockdowns don’t work, we don’t need a vaccine because HCQ works and ivermectin, etc., etc., etc.
So again I ask you… what makes the NIH, CDC, WHO experts so much more knowledgeable about this ‘virus’, if they have been wrong countless times and only changing their views (they claim: “based on new findings”) if all of the scientists and doctors they were trying to silence this whole time due to “misinformation” and “false news” were RIGHT ALL ALONG?
What makes these few “leading experts”, who have been proven wrong time and time again, and who has changed their mind, time and time again, so much more authoritative and knowledgeable about this coronavirus situation than the numerous other doctors and scientists who have been right from the very beginning? The very same scientists and doctors who have been gaslighted and ridiculed, censored and banned, doxxed and attacked for sticking to their values and scientific findings that these other so-called “leading experts” are just now admitting are correct?
Why aren’t Fauci and the rest of the government alphabet crew (NIH, WHO, CDC, FDA, etc.) labeled as “misinformation” and “false news” when they were peddling all of their uncertain information to begin with; yet the actual scientific facts and findings of the medical community were called into question? Should the media who helped propagate these incorrect assessments be held liable as well?
How many people could have been saved if the world leaders (far be it for me to imply that some (most?) are in on a huge conspiratorial agenda…) would have listened to the multiple doctors and scientists/researchers advice instead of those at the head of these (quite possibly corrupt) funded agencies?
Has Anthony Fauci been lying this whole time (
blaming citing ‘new information’) and just changing the goal posts to suit some other purpose?
“He should not be in the position like he’s in.“
“Those guys have got an agenda. Which is not, what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They’ve got a personal kind of agenda, they make up their own rules as they go, they change them when they want to – and they smugly – like Tony Fauci, does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.”
“You can’t expect the sheep, to really respect the best and the brightest. They don’t know the difference, really. I mean, I like humans, don’t get me wrong, but, basically, there is a vast majority of them do not possess the ability to judge who is and who isn’t a really good scientist. I mean, that’s a problem, that’s a main problem, actually with science, I’d say in this century, because scientists being judged by people, funding is being done by people who don’t understand it.”
“President of the University of South Carolina asked Fauci if he’d come down there and debate me on stage in front of the student body because I wanted somebody who was, from the other side, to come down there and balance my – because I felt like, well, these guys can listen to me, but I need to have somebody else down here that’s going to tell me the other side. But Fauci didn’t want to do it…“
An interesting piece from 1994 on Kary Mullis and his views on a couple of questionable individuals:
In the end, “Nightline” ran a two-part series, the first on Kary Mullis, the second on the HIV debate. Mullis was hired by ABC for a two-week period, to act as their scientific consultant and direct them to sources.
The show was superb, and represented a historic turning point, possibly even the end of the seven-year media blackout on the HIV debate. But it still didn’t fulfill Mullis’ ultimate fantasy. “What ABC needs to do,” says Mullis, “is talk to [Chairman of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony] Fauci and [Dr. Robert] Gallo [one of the discoverers of HIV] and show that they’re assholes, which I could do in ten minutes.”
But I point out, Gallo will refuse to discuss the HIV debate, just as he’s always done.
“I know he will,” Mullis shoots back, anger rising in his voice. “But you know what? I would be willing to chase the little bastard from his car to his office and say, ‘This is Kary Mullis trying to ask you a goddamn simple question,’ and let the cameras follow. If people think I’m a crazy person, that’s okay. But here’s a Nobel Prize-winner trying to ask a simple question from those who spent $22 billion and killed 100,000 people. It has to be on TV. It’s a visual thing. I’m not unwilling to do something like that.”
He pauses, then continues. “And I don’t care about making an ass of myself because most people realize I am one.”
It seems as if this self-described “ass” actually has a heart of gold and was trying to expose possible corruption as early as the 1990’s.
As Celia Farber, the interviewer, mentions: “One time, in 1994, when I called to talk to him about how PCR was being weaponized to “prove,” almost a decade after it was asserted, that HIV caused AIDS, he actually came to tears.“
Sadly Kary Mullis passed away on August 17, 2019, allegedly from pneumonia. Just weeks away from when Event 201 took place in October 2019, and a few more weeks from when an actual “surprise outbreak” erupted, allegedly as early as November 2019. And just a couple of months after that, we have the PCR tests that Mr. Kary Mullis himself invented and was against using for viral detection, being used (and abused) for viral detection en masse – at the behest of the “expert scientists”.
Science doesn’t lie. But people sure do.
Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.
Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.