Follow the Science (Except When the Results are Inconvenient)

During the COVID pandemic, much science is at play, treated either as gospel or hate speech, enough for science professionals to lose their jobs or be suspended from social media platforms if their views are inconvenient to the establishment’s narrative.

The all-knowing, all-caring, anointed guru of all things COVID, Dr Anthony Fauci, has been wrong at least as often as he has been right, with a predictive value of a coin flip. Yet any scientific utterance from him is treated in the media as a scientific law, on par with gravity, as long he speaks convenient science.

The CDC and WHO also have a long string of flip flops regarding the Wuhan flu. Were they following the science when they made their incorrect pronouncements? Or were they sticking a finger in the air, following the political winds?

YouTube screen grab

Hydroxychloroquine, a drug in common use for 6 decades, deemed safe for virtually the entire population except for the rare few with an unusual heart arrhythmia, has now been deemed as unsafe as eating rat poison or cyanide in the minds of most media consumers.

Snow skiing became popular around the same time as hydroxy was FDA approved. Scores of individuals are injured skiing every year on American mountains. Colorado typically has between 10 and 20 skiing related deaths every season, far more than deaths due solely to hydroxy. Yet skiing remains popular and legal whereas hydroxy is viewed as the worst medicine in the world. Based on science? What science?

There have been 187 hydroxy studies, 122 of which were peer reviewed. The word on Fox News and Twitter is that hydroxy will kill you, as Neil Cavuto proclaimed when President Trump told the world he was taking it. Yet the science says otherwise if you look at early versus late treatment of COVID, which only makes sense. The fire department saves houses if they arrive when there is a small kitchen fire, not when the entire house is ablaze.

100 percent of these studies report positive effects for early treatment, meaning those not yet in the hospital and certainly not on a ventilator. Yet the medical establishment and media choose only to focus on advanced disease where hydroxy offers little if any benefit.

If Barack Obama were president and touted hydroxy as a potential therapeutic, as Trump did, Obama would be lauded and likely awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine. But Trump hatred is so strong that so-called scientists draw a conclusion first, then focus only on data to support their conclusion, pretending any inconvenient contradictory doesn’t exist.

Are these are the people we want to entrust with America’s healthcare system? Making life and death decision for hundreds of millions of Americans? Think of Medicare-for-all under a Biden/Harris regime.

There is also Wu-Flu testing, with no distinction between cases and positive tests, skewing results, creating panic, closing businesses and schools, and ruining the US economy. Such a distinction would be inconvenient to the shut-it-all-down crowd who are only interested in “surges” and further mandates from totalitarian wannabe governors.

For more detail on cases versus tests, please read my summary of this COVID-con. Other have reached the same conclusion. A legal ruling in Portugal found that the COVID PCR test is “not fit for purpose” meaning mass testing.

They determined that overly high amplification cycles lead to excessive false positives and unreasonable quarantines and business closures. The judges determined that a positive Chinese coronavirus test has only a 3 percent chance of actually being positive.

The media chooses to ignore this court case because the ruling is inconvenient to their narrative. Compare how they lionize a Swedish teenager who says humans are warming and destroying the Earth but refuse to acknowledge Portuguese judges and their opinions.

All science is equal, but some science is more equal than others, to paraphrase George Orwell.

Death counts are reported no differently than COVID cases. Are all reported Wuhan flu deaths due to the virus or did these individuals just happen to test positive before or after death? George Floyd tested positive for COVID and is likely included in CNN’s touted death count. How many who die in hospice due to a terminal illness are labeled as COVID deaths? Is this good science or suppression of inconvenient data?

Johns Hopkins University actually took a stab at the science of Chinese virus deaths before they decided their results were inconvenient and buried them.

Hopkins researchers noted that the number of people who died last year is the same as this year. How could that be if hundreds of thousands are dying of the Wuhan flu? It turns out that increases in COVID deaths are offset by decreases in deaths due to heart disease and other ailments.

Has heart disease miraculously disappeared this year? Or are heart attacks being called COVID deaths? Perhaps the same people counting deaths have been counting votes in Philadelphia and Detroit, simply shifting enough votes from Trump to Biden to keep the totals the same but presenting a different and more convenient result.

The scientists want clinical trials. Where are the trials on masks, social distancing, quarantining the healthy, closing the economy? There are none. When a study is actually performed, as in the Danish mask study, the results are deemed inconvenient and buried by the scientist and corporate media.

If science were serious, as it should be, coronavirus data should be reviewed, analyzed, and presented objectively. Instead, we are seeing the opposite, where any results inconvenient to a largely political agenda are deemed inconvenient and hidden or deleted. Those presenting inconvenient results are castigated, maligned, and threatened by the ruling class for daring to challenge the orthodoxy.

Once upon a time, other inconvenient science, like the earth being round and revolving around the sun, were treated the same way as today’s anti-establishment COVID views.

All thanks to the “progressive” party inhabiting academia, entertainment, finance, media, sports, and much of Washington, DC, progressing not forward, but backward to the days of witchcraft and magic. Depending on how the 2020 election ultimately turns out, evidence-based science may go the way of the dodo bird.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, is a Denver based physician and freelance writer for American Thinker, Rasmussen Reports, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, Twitter, Parler, and QuodVerum.

If you experience technical problems, please write to