advocating for evidence based SCIENCe
OPTIMIST advocates for "following the science" rather than the practice of “trusting scientific experts” and not being allowed to question their interpretations of the data, or even see the data.
THIS PAGE IS CONSTANTLY BEING UPDATED. PLEASE CHECK BACK IN A COUPLE OF DAYS!
The Deadly Rise of Scientism
One of the greatest challenges each society faces is deciding what constitutes “truth.” Whoever holds that power wields enormous influence and steers the direction of the society for better or for worse.
​
For centuries, “truth” was delegated to the ruling institutions of the time, and hence truth was simply the narrative which conformed to their interests.
Then, during the enlightenment period a new idea emerged—that truth could somehow be determined empirically through experimentation and data.
This in turn gave birth to the scientific method and scientific revolution, and while not perfect, was a step up from what happened before. Sadly however, the tendency of ruling interests to want to monopolize the truth never went away and we’ve watched a curious phenomenon emerge where science has gradually transformed into something not that different from a state religion.
As a result, science has now become more and more the practice of “trusting scientific experts”, (many of whom are not in clinical practice), and making bland statements that the science is "settled" and that the products are "safe and effective". Furthermore independent scientists are not being allowed to see the data or indeed question their interpretations of the data. .
THE "SCIENCING" OF COVID
If you want to get a better understanding of the actual COVID-19 "science", read the following two papers. The first paper deals with mRNA technology issues that you were not told about - the misclassification of the products, the poor trial designs, the shortened Phase III trials, the early unblinding of the placebo groups, the substandard research practices, the inadequate safety testing, the unsupervised production processes, the lack of informed consent, the official misreporting of trial results, the underreporting of severe harms, the data integrity issues, natural immunity, excess mortality, the conflicts of interest, and the political & financial incentives that compromised public health. The second paper talks about the flawed policy implementation.
ACADEMic OBJECTIVITY
Academia is not what it once was - plagued with poor scientific research, publications now heavily funded by corporate interests and biased towards official narratives.
REGULATORY FAILURE
Our Regulatory Bodies are not not performing their duty of oversight of the products or industries they are supposed to be regulating.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The regulatory bodies are plagued with conflicts of interest from owning patents in pharmaceutical products to providing revolving doors for their executives to work in the industries they are supposed to regulate.
regulatory capture
The regulatory bodies such as the FDA, CDC, MHRA have been captured by corporate interests and act as rubber stamps for the industries that they are supposed to regulate.
TRIAL FRAUD/DECEPTION
There are increasing allegations of low quality trials, trial fraud and misrepresentation of data by manufacturers.
LACK OF REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY
The Regulatory Authorities are not being transparent and accountable with their data.