[Documentary] Fact vs. fake – why don’t we trust science any more?

Alvin2

The good news is patients don't die the bad news..
Messages
2,545
Likes
6,138
I'm unable to watch it but the frank answer is that people who fear progress are using every trick in the book to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt in order to prevent progress that is scary to them.
That said in regards to ME/CFS a bunch of reality fearing lunatics who have influence are desperate to prevent progress and to keep their house of cards standing. Being philosophical descendents of Freud they will never give up, even when we someday have a diagnostic test and treatment (the rest of the scientific community will just start ignoring them). In the same vein LGBT and hysteria were 'medical' conditions that took generations of social progress to overcome.
 

lenora

Senior Member
Messages
3,744
Likes
6,526
Hello....Well, yes, we've already been working on an answer to this for decades. I was one of the first on board, so was actively present at that time.

First we were hoping that answers to questions about AIDS would help us....nope, not even given to us. Then it was MS, same problem b/c our problems are slightly different. To be honest, I'm afraid the same thing may happen with Long Haul Syndrome...it's in the news now, we certainly aren't and were always negatively portrayed even when we were.

Look into the amount of research money that AIDS and MS receive today. I think you'll agree that it's quite astounding.

And why don't people trust science? I think that goes back to the spoken word that came out of JAMA and the New England Medical Society...things were stated and not changed every 6 mos. That has left a lot of people wary, although people don't realize the speed at which modern technology can change the answers to questions. We finally have researchers, but we absolutely must fund them and the govt. can't be relied on to do it at this particular time. We're a small, very ill group...we can't go on runs, our relatives are exhausted, that leaves private funding. If you know of any corporation that will match funds, especially on a certain date, please make certain that it's posted. Make your donations count.

Our answer is in research. It's so important. Yours, Lenora.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
245
Likes
605
Yes, this is a big topic over the past few years, they usually blame social media for this misinformation, but it was the elites / technocrats who ( probably knowingly )created this social media / internet for reasons unknown and set it up in this way to create division and conflict between people. Science / scientism is the new organized religion for the 'profane', a basket to throw us all in until we realize the trick being played, I used to see everything purely in terms of athiesm, I think its very common.

Made for measure or payed for research results you want and discard the studies that show the opposite is well known by informed people at this point, and people who studied history and look beyond their feelings can tell that governments define what is known, what is true to a large extent ( look at China, Russia etc ), its foolish to think this concept doesn't apply to the USA too. The social credit totalitarian communist system being used in China will be deployed in the rest of the world in a few years for example, the ideological groundwork has been laid.

I don't know what's going on with climate change, personally I would prefer to live in a more natural world rather than replacing nature with technology and artificial objects, a balance could be struck between the two but it seems balance doesn't suit the influencing elements in this world, whatever they are. If the science is correct we should be dead from acid rain, being sunk under the sea, ozone being destroyed, oil should have ran out decades ago, and yet I think for some of the scientists studying these things at the time, the data was convincing, it really showed that these things would happen, this is a big clue as to whats going on in the world in a larger sense. Science is real, and yet it is not. Magic is real, and yet it is not. Its a paradox as they say in the video. I don't have all the answers but I recommend not worrying about 'the apocalypse', been there done that.
 

nerd

Senior Member
Messages
863
Likes
2,536
If the science is correct we should be dead from acid rain, being sunk under the sea, ozone being destroyed, oil should have ran out decades ago, and yet I think for some of the scientists studying these things at the time, the data was convincing, it really showed that these things would happen,
I disagree. It was just the misinterpretation of science that implied these things. Science itself normally is very cautious with such claims, but the media has to sell, and hyperboles help in this matter. So they take the most dramatic theory of all, and express it in a sensationalizing way. Only because this interpretation by the media isn't accurate, this doesn't mean that science is more inaccurate than necessary.

By the way, the ozone layer was in a very bad shape if CFCs hadn't been banned. Fortunately, it eventually recovered. In China, where CFCs are still in use, the ozone layer still is in a bad shape.

Yes, this is a big topic over the past few years, they usually blame social media for this misinformation, but it was the elites / technocrats who ( probably knowingly )created this social media / internet for reasons unknown and set it up in this way to create division and conflict between people.
They are using this pandemic as an excuse to integrate censorship into these networks. Eventually, oligarchs will be able to influence public opinion and consensus not only via the press but also via social media. I think this is a worrying trend. You can't filter information and expect people to become more educated by it. You need to show them all the facts at the same time and expect that they can make their own judgment of what is true or false. Transparency is key.
 

TiredBill

Senior Member
Messages
335
Likes
1,523
People seem to believe anti-scientific misinformation that disseminated on YouTube videos and amplified across the internet these days instead of following science-based evidence or looking groups like the WHO, the FDA, or the European Medicines Agency as sources of information of drug efficacy and safety.

There seems to be a war on reason.

Bill
 

Hipsman

Senior Member
Messages
514
Likes
1,488
Location
Ukraine
WHO, the FDA, or the European Medicines Agency as sources of information of drug efficacy and safety.
If you watched the video you know about the shady studies done by tobacco industry before the cover up was revealed, all that misdirection was a part of the official narrative about the safety of smoking witch the official agencies were basing their guidelines on. You can never be sure about something if your just blindly follow what the official narrative is, because the studies these official organizations follow could be flawed and have conflict of interest.
 

nerd

Senior Member
Messages
863
Likes
2,536
People seem to believe anti-scientific misinformation that disseminated on YouTube videos and amplified across the internet these days instead of following science-based evidence or looking groups like the WHO, the FDA, or the European Medicines Agency as sources of information of drug efficacy and safety.
You have to differentiate YouTube as an information source. It is true. There are people who watch YouTube videos and who believe every word without second-guessing and without verification. There are also people who read the newspaper and believe every word without second-guessing. This isn't a new phenomenon. It's a matter of attitude and of comfort. It's a comfortable world view when everything you read in mainstream press and media; when every word from a government official or president is correct. I try not to judge people when they follow this worldview. Because at some point in my life, I was in the same shoes. Still, I try to convince them why an awake attitude is necessary in this world.

YouTube can be a credible source of information when they present verifiable data. When a YouTube person makes the claim that 1+1=3, you also verify it, don't you? But it's more difficult with science. Not every study is easy to understand to the broad audience. So it's no surprise that less educated people were big fans of Trump's false claims about climate change and other things. Most people don't verify it themselves. Either they trust the media and their reaction to such claims, or they try to verify it, but they have to be educated to understand it.

To be honest, I haven't verified the meta-reviews on climate change either. But I trust the scientists who present the evidence. I do not trust official bodies which haven't done anything meaningful against climate change yet, although they admit that it is real and that change is necessary. But why do we have to change it right now? It's comfortable the way it is. Let the following generations fix the mess. Let's only approve a COVID-19 or CFS/ME drug when there is absolute evidence from 10 large randomized multi-center double-blind placebo-controlled trials, or 100 even? Where is the limit? And doesn't waiting while doing nothing cause more harm than doing something that might or might not help? This is nonsensical in a cost-benefit analysis.

I can find so many examples of where the officials fail and failed. Smoking advertisements are still legal in various countries such as Germany, despite the evidence. Alcohol advertisements are still legal, despite the evidence. The evidence clearly shows that the current actions against climate change are like a drop on a host stone. Despite the evidence, neonicotinoids are still in use in most countries. They just replace Glyphosate with another version of the same agent and it's legal again. So let's trust the official bodies that these other neonicotinoids, for which the only evidence for their safety is a closed-access internal study from the manufacturer, must be safe because the manufacturer says so?
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,857
Likes
34,151
Location
Second star to the right ...
Eventually, oligarchs will be able to influence public opinion and consensus not only via the press but also via social media. I think this is a worrying trend. You can't filter information and expect people to become more educated by it.
It's already happening, or rather, has happened. And it's terrifying.

It boils down to the concerted dumbing down of the electorate, starting in pre-school and accelerating from there.

About 20 years ago, they re-wrote COLLEGE textbooks down to an 8th grade level, because that's what the reading and comprehension level of college freshman was. It's only gotten worse since.
You need to show them all the facts at the same time and expect that they can make their own judgment of what is true or false. Transparency is key.
It's pointless to show 'them' all the facts, when 'they' can't differentiate between a logical syllogism and a bald-faced lie. When there's no critical faculty, there's no point to truth and transparency.
There are people who watch YouTube videos and who believe every word without second-guessing and without verification.
And we're back to critical thinking ....
There are also people who read the newspaper and believe every word without second-guessing
Oh look !!!! We're back to it again ...

God help us .....

EDIT ... Why yes, typos. At least 5 .... and I chcked before I postd it !!!! Damn damn dman dmsm .... not even going to try to fix these new ones ....
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,857
Likes
34,151
Location
Second star to the right ...
It was just the misinterpretation of science that implied these things. Science itself normally is very cautious with such claims, but the media has to sell, and hyperboles help in this matter.
I agree and that's another problem. As long as 'news' is monetized, the incentive to reinvent it into something that will draw more eyeballs is inescapable, and what draws more eyeballs is never the truth, which seems to be like Kryptonite to almost 50% of the population here in the US ....


EDIT .... for typos, what else ....
 
Last edited:

nerd

Senior Member
Messages
863
Likes
2,536
When there's no critical faculty, there's no point to truth and transparency.
Both things are sides of the same medal. Without critical faculty, there is no critical thinking. Without transparency, a critical faculty can not evolve. When everything you read is already prepared and shaped mouth-ready to swallow down, how are people even supposed to notice that this isn't the real thing? When all you see in the supermarket is already pre-cooked, how are you supposed to understand that a piece of meat was from a living animal? There has to be a wake-up moment. When you tell a person to kill the animal themselves, and dissect it, and cook it, they will have a completely different understanding of the value that is in food.

It boils down to the concerted dumbing down of the electorate, starting in pre-school and accelerating from there.
I agree. It all starts in childhood. Our current western school system is aligned to make students follow rules, recite knowledge, repeat prepared sets of actions. Things that any robot could do one day. Only in universities, this is when they begin to teach you to think on your own and critically. If they changed the school system by allowing students to teach and educate themselves, this is when a society can eventually become awake. But this isn't in the interest of a productivity-driven society that needs workers. Workers who fulfill roles and not who follow an idea of a better future.
 
Messages
14,857
Likes
34,151
Location
Second star to the right ...
Only in universities, this is when they begin to teach you to think on your own and critically.
Not so much ..... at least not over here, and not bery often. Parents like to see their offspring bring home A's, and their donations to the University are tied to that expectation, so the University accommodates that need.

And even if they hadn't written COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY texts down to 8th grade level and limited the scope and range of other materials, it would still be too late ....
 
Messages
10,522
Likes
25,308
following science-based evidence or looking groups like the WHO, the FDA, or the European Medicines Agency as sources of information of drug efficacy and safety.
The scientific arena has not necessarily served our community well. We wait.

Each: potential diagnositic found, is still: not sanctioned, approved, official, recognized or used. Still has to be further verified. And nobody seems to be doing much verifying.

Another review article summaring old studies that have mixed results- More Study needed. Better ID of cohorts.

So wake me up when something gets approved. And then my insurance likely wont' cover it. Never have so far.

Both things are sides of the same medal. Without critical faculty, there is no critical thinking. Without transparency, a critical faculty can not evolve.
We have very misplaced values. I would spend summer's in my room reading books from libraries. All far far over my head usually.

I recall a boy in my daughters high school class said the only way he could have friends was to stop getting A's, so he did. He dumbed himself down. to fit in socially.
 

BrightCandle

Senior Member
Messages
774
Likes
2,762
I don't have an issue with science, but what medicine has done to ME patients has regularly not at all passed the basic low bar of minimal medical study let alone actual scientific inquiry. Science is something where the entire theory and process are published so that anyone can reproduce the result and do so reliably. This has absolutely not been the case with a lot of ME research. Medicine in general has a problem with verification and reproduction.

I don't have to believe in science, it simply is the case and I should be able to validate it given I set my experiment up correctly. The ME science always went contrary to the patients reality. But then authorities in general ask for us to believe rather than validate and the privatization of science has caused a big problem with validation. Something like a third of science papers just aren't reproduceable and it is getting worse. While money exists for the original paper to be produced there is none for the reproduction. The funding model for science is corrupting as is the model in which that science is reported. Until those are fixed "true science" isn't very easy to come by.