Follow the Science, Even When It Changes (Especially When It Changes)
By: Jeff M. Lewis
“Follow the science!” is all we hear, along with how dare we question “the science.” Well, let’s bring the vigorous boil down to a low simmer for a minute so we can get to the root of things, shall we?
As a layperson, not a scientist or medical professional, I would never offer medical advice. However, I can understand simple English and science, and can apply that knowledge to search for the definition of “science.”
From Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, Science (Latin; Scientia, meaning “knowledge”): “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws….”
From Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.”
Perceiving a trend exists, let’s agree for the moment that, in the everyday language we regular folks use, “science” means “what we know” about a specific area of study, research, etc.
For example, nearly everyone understands the simple chemical and physical characteristics of water. Water (two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom) is found in three forms: vapor, liquid, or solid. Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit and freezes at 32 degrees. We can change those values by introducing variables of salinity or atmospheric pressure, but H2O is a stable compound and provides predictable, observable, repeatable results.
Can we agree that every scientific discipline is unique? For instance, what we know about biology is different from physics, which is different from meteorology, astrophysics, biophysics, and immunology—correct? Therefore, we do not ask rocket scientists to perform brain surgery, nor do we require neurosurgeons to calculate the parameters for NASA missions to re-enter the atmosphere. Also, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that the precision and success that may characterize one realm of science can automatically be expected in another.
For example, the universe and our solar system have been created in a manner that provides incredible stability and predictability. Scientists today can predict the exact moment an eclipse will occur and the shadow’s precise track across the earth. They can do so because of the stability of the system and the absence of independent variables.
Ah, variables. In meteorology and climate sciences, all meteorologists will admit they cannot accurately predict weather beyond 5-7 days. I believe this is because there are too many independent variables that affect the atmosphere, the global climate, and the weather on any given day.
Let’s move on to the details about the “science” of our response to the COVID pandemic because “what we know” has changed. If we can understand one thing about our sciences and what we know, it should be that nearly everything we know is subject to change. As what we know changes, we should be making sufficient changes to our actions to manage desired outcomes effectively.
In late 2019, there was an uncontrolled outbreak of a novel (new) Coronavirus in Wuhan, China, and people there were dying of a mysteriously bad respiratory “flu.” By late January, the Coronavirus was ashore in the United States. By March 2020, the novel Coronavirus had spread to the point that we locked down the citizens of the United States and effectively shut down the economy.
We did so chiefly because the models predicted over 1 million and as many and 2 million American deaths if we did nothing. We needed to “flatten the curve;” that is, manage and reduce the numbers of sick patients sure to overwhelm the hospitals.
We were never—never—going to do “nothing.” We were therefore victims of the models’ predictions. The messaging that went forth to scare the daylights out of everyone and remove every square of toilet paper from every store shelf was flawed from the outset. The notable exceptions were the few state governments that accurately and effectively identified the hazards to those most at-risk and managed the risks to their citizens.
For the remainder of 2020, the primary strategies to deal with the pandemic were lockdowns, masks, social distancing, handwashing, and hand sanitizers. There was very little messaging or instruction on dietary supplements or medicines to prevent infection. We mostly had to rely on ourselves to apply what we knew (the science) about how to avoid illness during the cold and flu seasons and employ our knowledge the best we could against COVID-19.
The scientific community has studiously and conscientiously reviewed the science behind the government-mandated shutdowns, their restrictions to preventative and therapeutic medicines, the masks—all of it. The best we can conclude after 18 months of the pandemic is that none of it made a significant impact. For all the very real pain and loss from the government mandates, we didn’t change the outcome.
Our reliance on promised vaccines, in my average, everyday layperson’s opinion, has been a self-imposed vulnerability and a self-inflicted wound. Despite reliable, peer-reviewed studies that indicated positive results from early intervention with both Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin (IVM), the powers-that-be in the U.S. government’s medical bureaucracies have restricted their use, and they actively continue to suppress the supply of HCQ and IVM in spite of positive results worldwide. In addition, the federal government is now restricting the distribution of effective monoclonal antibody preventative and treatment to coerce Americans to get vaccinated.
Where is the science that supports this? Contrary to the restrictions in the United States, the preponderance of the evidence for the use of these medicines supports their safety and effectiveness against the COVID-19 disease. Even further, what we know from science and objective data should lead us to conclude that neglecting to prescribe preventative medicine and waiting to aggressively treat the disease until hospitalization and incubation are required puts patients at higher risk of death. Macon County is one of the rare governments working to keep citizens out of the hospital:
In late 2020 when the vaccines were approved for emergency use—because they are experimental messenger RNA vaccines—they were said to be over 90% effective against the virus that causes the COVID-19 illness. The messaging was that the vaccines would save us. With the worldwide distribution of the vaccines, cases and hospitalizations dropped significantly and we began to believe we were emerging from the nightmare.
The science, however, is that viruses mutate, and now we are battling the Delta variant. But our strategies have not changed even though we know the vaccines have waning effectiveness. With the high number of “breakthrough” infections, the blame for the rise in cases is on the unvaccinated, because the government’s strategy is vaccination and only vaccination.
The government’s response is myopic at best and dangerous at worst. At the same time, the installed administration has continued to push for vaccinations, an uncontrolled influx of untested and unvaccinated illegal aliens stream across our southern border and are released into communities across the country. It is no less than criminal negligence or a criminal enterprise, in my opinion. The installed administration and its alphabet soup of “health” agencies have only accomplished subjugating American citizens.
Let’s change our plan because what we know about COVID-19 and how to prevent it and treat it has changed. You can do your research, talk to your doctor, and come up with a plan.
The government is not going to save us.
This above article (Follow the Science, Even When It Changes (Especially When It Changes)) is republished here under “Fair Use” (see disclaimer below article) with attribution to the articles author Jeff M. Lewis and website americanthinker.com.
TLB Project recommends that you visit the American Thinker website for more great articles and information.
About the Author: Jeff M. Lewis is a Christian, a husband and father, a Veteran, and a self-employed small business owner who resides in South Texas.
Read more articles and blog-posts by Jeff M. Lewis.
Read more articles about “Follow The Science”
Click on the image below to visit site:
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.