Better in their words…

During COVID-19, the public had the chance to see authoritarian Faucian Science displayed in full view. Numerous times when being questioned by Senator Rand Paul, Fauci cited as proof of his position: “You can ask people up and down the ranks in (the science of) public health, they will all agree with me”. Of course, Fauci never proffered the fact that if anyone dared go against the consensus… HIS consensus, their funding would be cut, their medical licenses threatened, and their careers destroyed.

Under those circumstances, his statement to Senator Paul was as much of a claim as it was an edict to his minions: “You better say as I say, or else”.

Fauci’s reign was the worst-case and best example of Authoritarian Science leading to the Tyranny of Consensus I’ve ever seen in modern times.

But it doesn’t take a Fauci to stifle the emergence of knowledge through the community process known as Science. Within each discipline, there exists an old guard who has learned the tricks of the trade and made the political connections, and they (not all, but some) hold on to their pet hypotheses and ideas long after new studies and new types of data emerge that contradict the old. In the language of the philosophy of science, per Kuhn, they hold on to their old paradigms long after new data should have resulted in a “paradigm shift”. Some of the old guard begin to confuse their ideas with rigid facts.

Max Planck, the famous physicist, wrote in his autobiography,

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it …

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.”

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

In common terms, this is sometimes paraphrased as

“Science progresses one funeral at a time”.

In more general terms, the Tyranny of Consensus can stifle scientific progress in several ways:

1. Suppression of Alternative Hypotheses: When consensus becomes entrenched, dissenting voices or alternative hypotheses may be disregarded or actively suppressed. This hinders scientific exploration and limits the consideration of potentially groundbreaking ideas or theories.
2. Confirmation Bias: The Tyranny of Consensus can lead to confirmation bias, where scientists selectively interpret or emphasize data that supports the prevailing consensus while ignoring or downplaying conflicting evidence. This can impede the advancement of knowledge by perpetuating flawed or incomplete understandings of phenomena.
3. Inhibition of Innovative Thinking: Consensus-driven environments can discourage innovative thinking by reinforcing established frameworks and discouraging the exploration of unconventional ideas. This can hinder the emergence of and acceptance of new results – really, breakthroughs – that challenge existing beliefs.

There are a large number of historical examples where the crowd got it wrong for a long time and dissenting voices were drowned out including:

• Geocentric Model: For centuries, the prevailing consensus held that the Earth was at the center of the universe, with celestial bodies orbiting around it. Dissenting voices, such as those supporting the heliocentric model proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus, faced strong opposition and persecution. It wasn’t until the work of scientists like Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler that the heliocentric model gained acceptance, revolutionizing our understanding of the cosmos.
• Semmelweis’s Handwashing: In the 19th century, Ignaz Semmelweis proposed that handwashing could prevent infections in healthcare settings, particularly in maternity wards. However, his ideas were met with resistance and ridicule by the medical establishment. It took many years before the importance of hand hygiene was widely accepted, leading to significant improvements in public health.
• Plate Tectonics: The concept of plate tectonics, which explains the movement and interactions of Earth’s lithospheric plates, faced opposition and skepticism for decades. Prominent scientists such as Alfred Wegener, who proposed the theory of continental drift, were initially met with rejection and criticism. It wasn’t until the mid-20th century that plate tectonics became widely accepted, fundamentally transforming our understanding of Earth’s geology.
• Laboratory Origin of the Coronavirus: I first proposed that the virus most likely originated from the lab on January 30, 2020 (see China’s rebuttal). This was an idea that I never gave up on I merely retracted the idea that pShuttle-SN was the smoking gun under questionable circumstances of shifting data. However, it took the US DOE and the US FBI, and a Congressional Senate Committee three years until they published their views that the lab was the most likely origin. The majority consensus “fact” that there was no data that supported the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaped from the WIV was made “fact” by a hoax perpetuated by Anthony Fauci who had been contacted by an evolutionary biologist (Kristen Anderson) who miraculously changed his view after the phone call, leading to the phony “Proximal Origins” paper that claimed that hypotheses of lab origin were conspiracy theories and should be rejected. (See the Intercept break down the unredacted emails proving the conspiracy to bury the Andersen viewpoint). Assuming the records of laboratory methods exist, what might we have been able to know via treatment options if we knew the methods used to bring forward SARS-CoV-2? How many lives might have been saved?

These examples demonstrate how the Tyranny of Consensus can hinder scientific progress by stifling dissenting voices and impeding the acceptance of paradigm-shifting ideas.

The more recent examples, of course, include the incorrect positions such as

• Lack of efficacy of early treatment options
• Zero false positives with RT-PCR tests
• Efficacy of masks
• Efficacy of lockdowns
• The expectation of near-perfect safety of mRNA vaccines
• The expectation of the vaccines to nearly perfectly stop transmission
• Incorrect claims of the reduction of the rate of serious COVID-19 and hospitalization

These and other examples covered in many articles on Popular Rationalism highlight how the Tyranny of Consensus can impose massive costs on society when scientific understanding is hindered or distorted. By recognizing the potential limitations and biases associated with consensus-based decision-making, society can strive for a more dynamic, evidence-based approach that promotes open debate, critical thinking, and the incorporation of diverse perspectives to minimize the costs of misunderstanding or incorrect scientific consensus.

VaccineS and Autism

The stated scientific and medical consensus is that vaccines do not cause autism. Check the CDC website – it’s right there.

But this is an impossible knowledge claim: not all vaccines have been studied for causal links to autism.

I know. I scoured the literature in 2014. Here’s what I found:

After a presentation at Life University in 2015, other organizations followed my lead. Del Bigtree and his team at ICANDECIDE.org scoured the literature, too, and in finding that some vaccines had never been studied even for association with autism, sued the CDC. They even won a stipulation that led to the CDC temporarily changing their website from “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”.

Here’s ICANDECIDE.org’s press release after CDC changed the website BACK to “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism” after the media relations debacle caused by their hard-won stipulation.

Autism is now 1 in 36 children, 1 in 26 boys. The Tyranny of Consensus about autism and vaccines has now only provided pediatricians cover for vaccinating billions of children around the world: Francis Collins, former Directors of the NIH, failed to fund any therapies or treatment programs, biomedical and language therapy, condemning the millions of children in the US and the hundreds of millions around the world and their parents to more stressful days, more hardships in life, and many cases, to over two decades of not being able to tell their parents “I Love You” or to show their teachers that they are, in fact, the smartest kid in the classroom.

Read: “SPELLERS”: A Documentary That is Going to Change the World (substack.com)

“SPELLERS”: A Documentary That is Going to Change the World

James Lyons-Weiler · Feb 16

Imagine being unable to speak, wanting to speak, with everyone treating you like an infant. For your entire life. You’re not able to ask for things you like, or let your loved ones know you’re in pain. You cannot report any wrongdoings that are done to you. You can’t express your feelings.

Read full story

Share Popular Rationalism

Leave a comment