A Government Scientific Adviser has said that academic infighting over Covid-19 worries him more than “handling the virus itself”.
Speaking in a personal capacity, Professor Thomas House, who sits on the Government’s SPI-M modelling team, said scientific rows over pandemic policies have become “the most toxic they have ever been” and called for “genuine compromise” between those with opposing views.
Professor House said: “I am fed up with the attitude of some scientists who polarise this debate and do not allow for discourse.”
His comments come as a new study suggests those who claim to be “following the science” may simply be discounting evidence that runs counter to their beliefs.
The paper found most of the research into the management of Covid has taken one of two approaches ‑ mathematical modelling or analysis of real-world evidence.
To date, the modelling approach has been preferred by policy makers, with proponents of the evidence-based approach being “dismissed, mocked and even shunned”, the researchers found.
The study ‑ A Tale Of Two Scientific Paradigms: Conflicting Scientific Opinions On What Following The Science Means For SARS-CoV-2 And The Covid-19 Pandemic ‑ is based on data from 30 countries.
The researchers analysed the same data using both approaches and were surprised to find they got remarkably different results.
The modelling-based approach justified many measures the Government has implemented during the pandemic, while the evidence-based approach suggested many of these measures have been largely ineffective and even counterproductive.
Using the evidence based approach found that there was no evidence that the non-pharmaceutical interventions such as lockdowns, social distancing, and mask wearing were effective in preventing the spread of the alleged Covid-19 disease, but that there was plenty of evidence the Governments version of a cure was far worse than the Covid-19 disease itself.
The study also found that the evidence based approach found no need for a population-wide experimental vaccination programme and led to a conclusion that effective therapeutics should instead be actively encouraged.
Dr Ronan Connolly, a scientific modeller and co-author of the study, said: “This was a worrying finding since analysing the same data with different scientific approaches should give broadly similar answers.”
The authors warned: “This means anyone who thinks they are ‘following the science’ on Covid-19 is probably only following one part of the science and dismissing the rest.”
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help..
Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
.
Can you please help power The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful journalism for the years to come…
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal
are trying to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuse to…
We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.
Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…
Just choose your preferred method
to show your support belowV support
Categories: Breaking News, Did You Know?, The Expose Blog, World News
It’s pretty obvious really what’s going on. Isn’t it.Its not like rocket wcience to join the dots. Is it.
They’re obviously not getting paid to lie kill and maim by top rat pedo ring Bill and that is the main criteria for being a covid scamdemic scientist.
Don’t expect it to be picked up by the msm media funded by pedo ring bill like the wholly corrupt evil j e w i s h bahstard governments mouthpiece the BBC or the gay Guardian either of course.
I get paid over $86 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 12k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.
Here what I’ve been doing………. https://Www.Money74.Com
Do you realise that your unsubstantiated anti-semitic position is racist and would please Hitler?
A 3rd person in Japan has died from the “contaminated” moderna jab.
The batch was made in europe. Should have had it made in china.
Europe, who most of the leaders of are evil fake J e w s. That will teach China to bunk up with the eternal enemy of all mankind and become 1
Talking of the eternal enemy of all mankind, how much evidence against evil lying fake J e w i s h rat Fauci and his best friends China do the Americans need before that rat faced freak gets arrested for treason and being a genocidal j e wish maniac ?
SEPT 6TH
And yet another piece of very bad news care of evil traitorous mass
murdering, lying, thieving hated fake j e w i s h effluent, Rothschilds wh*re and cousin of the fraud royal j e w i s h pedo turds on the throne Boris Swinestein. That unwanted terrorist immigrant from hell has decided it’s ok to release untreated sewerage in rivers in a country that never wanted his tribe of diseased turds back in it. .
Not only are this cult of child raping country wrecking mass murdering vermin that over 100 countries evicted for being pure evil, cutting down hectares of OUR ancient woodlands killing our wildlife in the process, now the tribe of pure effluent, are now flooding untreated sewerage into OUR rivers and streams to kill more wildlife and spread disease thanks to pedo rings pet pr*ck of the minute, Boris Swinestein.
Your anti-Jewish racism and general levels of bigotry and insanity are off the scale. In my opinion, the only rationality for such disgusting bile is that you wish to exploit and discredit a vital forum for free speech.
The researchers describe modelling and empirical-based research as equally scientific, and treat them as such. But is their assumption scientific? Can modelling and empirical evidence be equally subject to testing and verification by other scientists, as must always happen in science? Can models which speculate about unknown futures ever be tested or verified? Obviously not in both cases. It looks to me like the authors of this very useful research have unfortunately misrepresented theory as the entirety of science, instead of presenting it as just a useful part of scientific practice. The empirical or concrete world of facts and practices logically precedes all human theorisation seeking to understand it. Models may look very real, but are still only theories masquerading as facts, not the facts themselves. To cut a long story short, this fundamental confusion fosters more scientific illiteracy and thus the political elite’s continuing control over the rest of us. Politicians and scientists of the state see scary imagined futures, but not the awful reality they and their real-world policies are creating. In sum, experts who ignore or deny the supremacy of empirical evidence over modelling aren’t being sceptical or scientific enough, while politicians ignoring or denying the thousands of dead bodies resulting from their safe and effective clot shots are anti-science, anti-life and anti-truth. Nothing new there.