Test Ike's prediction about science Test

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Ike's prediction about science

Test
Nov 24, 2020 | 07:37 1 So, is science still objective? (If it ever was)

It does appear that in its early days, there was a far greater freedom from bias.

Today, it has lost much of - if not most of - its shiny armor of respect as the general public becomes increasingly more cognizant of the obvious bias, special interests and political pressures toward predetermined goals.

"President Eisenhower surrounded himself with brilliant academics, he knew that science ended World War II without costing another million American lives, but by 1961 he also knew "we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”"

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/12/26...-science-12219

One of my sisters who spent her entire career in medical practice made the statement that a dependable vaccine takes years to develop.

If the heralded vaccines are reliable and safe, why has all liability for harmful outcomes been waived? Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2020 | 07:51 2
Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
So, is science still objective? (If it ever was)

It does appear that in its early days, there was a far greater freedom from bias.

Today, it has lost much of - if not most of - its shiny armor of respect as the general public becomes increasingly more cognizant of the obvious bias, special interests and political pressures toward predetermined goals.

"President Eisenhower surrounded himself with brilliant academics, he knew that science ended World War II without costing another million American lives, but by 1961 he also knew "we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”"

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/12/26...-science-12219

One of my sisters who spent her entire career in medical practice made the statement that a dependable vaccine takes years to develop.

If the heralded vaccines are reliable and safe, why has all liability for harmful outcomes been waived?
In the horse and buggy days it would take all day to plow 40 acres. The advent of the tractor reduced the time required down to hours.

Conventional plant breeding took years to develop a new trait as breeders had to wait for plant to mature and set seeds before attempting a cross. Today a new trait can be introduced through genetic manipulation in minutes. In both GE and conventional breeding the offspring of the plant must be observed to see if the desired trait is consistant and safe however.

Science has enabled virologists to create new vaccines quicker but that does not automatically mean the results are effective or safe so testing is still required. Only the research time looking for possible vaccines has been shortened.

So if the entire system is to be shortened it was deemed necessary to reduce testing times of new vaccines and one way to accomplish that is to waive corporate liability of the inital testing of new vaccines. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Nov 24, 2020 | 07:54 3 Since RNA messenger based vaccines have been developed through genetic engineering, I am really interested how many people who refuse GMOs in the food chain will accept GE vaccines injected into their bodies. We will find out if GMO avoidance is real or a marketing scam Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Nov 24, 2020 | 08:02 4
    Quote Originally Posted by dmlfarmer View Post
    Since RNA messenger based vaccines have been developed through genetic engineering, I am really interested how many people who refuse GMOs in the food chain will accept GE vaccines injected into their bodies. We will find out if GMO avoidance is real or a marketing scam
    Good observations that I can agree with. (Not that that matters to the "science")

    But are the two positions necessarily mutually exclusive? The applications are different, IMHO.

    Disclaimer: I grow non-GMO crops because of the premium I capture as much or more than any objection to the genetic manipulation behind it.

    On soys, this year a $4.00 premium. On corn a minimum $20/t premium and seed at 2/3s the cost ($200 /bag vs. $300+/bag for traited seed, 1 bag = 2.5 acres) for very little yield penalty.
    Last edited by burnt; Nov 24, 2020 at 08:05.
    Reply With Quote
    Blaithin's Avatar Nov 24, 2020 | 08:06 5 I would go so far as to say science isn’t biased. Following its procedures properly, you’re going to get what you’re going to get. Much like math. Do the work properly and the answer will be the answer, doesn’t matter what you want.

    But the people are more and more bias and interpret the answers as they see fit.

    “There’s *blank* amount of carbon in the atmosphere.”

    Ok.

    Some say it’s too much and global warming will happen. Some say it’s lower than ever and we’re in danger of being short.

    The answer is the answer but how the answer affects us is something science needs time to help it explain. It’ll be the same with a sped up vaccine protocol. Time is needed to help know the affects of the answer. Reply With Quote
    Nov 24, 2020 | 08:10 6
    Quote Originally Posted by dmlfarmer View Post
    Since RNA messenger based vaccines have been developed through genetic engineering, I am really interested how many people who refuse GMOs in the food chain will accept GE vaccines injected into their bodies. We will find out if GMO avoidance is real or a marketing scam
    The sheep are so totally freaked out now they will take any experimental anything and then walk right on to the cattle cars. Be no problem to get them to do anything now. Conditioning and propaganda works.

    Thats why Canada ordered 400M doses for a population of 40M. Maybe you need it monthly. Reply With Quote

  • Nov 24, 2020 | 08:15 7
    Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
    Good observations that I can agree with. (Not that that matters to the "science")

    But are the two positions necessarily mutually exclusive? The applications are different, IMHO.

    Disclaimer: I grow non-GMO crops because of the premium I capture as much or more than any objection to the genetic manipulation behind it.

    On soys, this year a $4.00 premium. On corn a minimum $20/t premium and seed at 2/3s the cost ($200 /bag vs. $300+/bag for traited seed, 1 bag = 2.5 acres) for very little yield penalty.
    And vaccines can still me created the old way - by trial and error and be just as effective and safe as a GE vaccine. And a GE vaccine may cause unintended reactions in the body just as conventionally produced vaccines may so safety and testing are concerns that have to be addressed in both. GE simply identifies a genetic target and a scientific way to hit that target in a much shorter time frame than trial and error search for something. Reply With Quote
    Nov 24, 2020 | 08:20 8
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    The sheep are so totally freaked out now they will take any experimental anything and then walk right on to the cattle cars. Be no problem to get them to do anything now. Conditioning and propaganda works.

    Thats why Canada ordered 400M doses for a population of 40M. Maybe you need it monthly.
    No, the order of 400 million doses are in lots of 20 million or so of a number of different vaccines. There was no way to tell in the search for a vaccine of which company would be successful in finding a vaccine or when that would happen. So instead of placing all their bets on one company, they invested in a number of companies thereby increasing the chances that at least one of the vaccine would be effective early. Payment is not made until vaccines are delivered either so Canada is not out anything and as it turns out will have early access to a number of vaccines. Reply With Quote
    Nov 24, 2020 | 08:27 9 If the public was actually told these are DNA based vaccines and not deactivated or weakened viruses, they might feel differently. But right now they think this is on par with the measles vaccine and ready to line up for it.

    A regular vaccine has a 10yr lifecycle development. We now have a new proto type vaccine ready for worldwide distribution in 6 months time.

    I bet more research went into GMOs than this vaccine.

    Forgive me if my alarm bells go off. Reply With Quote

  • Nov 24, 2020 | 08:35 10 I've been saying for years that the corruption of climate science was going to come back to haunt the broader scientific community in the future.
    This pandemic is a prime example, many in the public no longer trusts science, and in this case, it seems they probably should, for their own safety.
    Charlatans such as Michael Mann and his fraudulent hockey stick, and science by lawsuit ( and the faithfull blinded by ideology followers such as our very own Chuck et al.) have done irrepairable damage to the integrity of the scientific community.
    Call it noble cause corruption, because no doubt, many of those involved truly do believe in their cause, and therefore think that the end justifies the means, however nefarious those means might be. But when the real world refuses to conform to their beliefs, and they double down by attacking anyone using science to point out their errors, it erodes the public trust in both sides, and in the very institution that is science. This environment just breeds conspiracy theories.

    Now honest scientists, and I have no doubt that the vast majority of those working on this pandemic and vaccines are honest and incorruptible, have a genuine problem to solve, have a massive uphill battle to regain the publics trust in science. This loss of trust almost necessitates circumventing conventional norms when ( or if) there is genuine immediate public risk from something as deadly as a virus( even if this one is turning out to be not as deadly as originally projected, it won't be the last time we need science to save us). Corrupt scientists created the environment where conspiracy theories sometimes make more sense than the supposed science, now genuine scientists have to overcome that lack of trust.

    And no, I'm not going to rehash the gory details of the climate change debate on this thread, it is all available on old Agriville threads.

    Likewise, the scam artist marketing products by pretending there is something evil about GMO, or conventional ag have done a huge diservice to the scientists using these modern techniques to expedite development of solutions, in this case vaccines, in others, healthier or more robust crops or livestock.

    Scientists themselves need to stand up to this deliberate corruption and regain trust. Unfortunately, that seems about as likey as farmers uniting and standing up against attacks on our livelihoods.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Nov 24, 2020 at 09:20.
    Reply With Quote

  • Nov 24, 2020 | 08:47 11 There is a legitimate concern that the side effects from the first dose of the covid vaccine, might deter people from returning to get the second dose.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/covi...the-park-.html Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Nov 24, 2020 | 08:56 12 Honestly, this new, rush-to-market vaccine $#!& just scares me.

    Not volunteering to get it.

    #NotAGuineaPig Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • fjlip's Avatar Nov 24, 2020 | 09:04 13 Not to worry people, EVERY politician, Dr, Nurse, care givers will be by law made to take the vaccines FIRST. We will see side effects maybe in our own relatives. Then rest can decide to take, UNLESS mandated by the need of proof to do any business, normal social interaction, leave your house. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Nov 24, 2020 | 09:06 14
    Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
    Honestly, this new, rush-to-market vaccine $#!& just scares me.

    Not volunteering to get it.

    #NotAGuineaPig
    Would there be any point in developing a vaccine in the usual decade(s) long timeframe for an immediate threat?

    We don't know this, so I am purely speculating with made up numbers, but pretend that the hastily tested vaccine side effects end up killing 0.05% of those vaccinated, but the virus would eventually kill 1% of the population, is that a trade off that is worthwhile? Russian Roulette so speak? Reply With Quote
    Nov 24, 2020 | 09:20 15
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    I've been saying for years that the corruption of climate science was going to come back to haunt the scientific community in the future..
    This.

    The science community put all its horses on a failed false prediction and even doubled down on it and then now running off with misinformation during a pandemic aided and abetted by our idiot politicians and now they wonder why they have zero credibility.

    Our socialist doctors and unionized nurses are on the gravy train as well.

    Regarding GMOs, well I could care less if they get taken out of circulation by some activists with an axe to grind. I can make it without them.
    Last edited by jazz; Nov 24, 2020 at 09:23.
    Reply With Quote

  • Nov 24, 2020 | 09:56 16
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Would there be any point in developing a vaccine in the usual decade(s) long timeframe for an immediate threat?

    We don't know this, so I am purely speculating with made up numbers, but pretend that the hastily tested vaccine side effects end up killing 0.05% of those vaccinated, but the virus would eventually kill 1% of the population, is that a trade off that is worthwhile? Russian Roulette so speak?
    With all due respect, sir, when my health and welfare at at stake, I will stick with a balanced approach of empirical discovery rather than hypotheticals.

    Admitting that I am in the lowest echelon of scientific instruction, I don't see how something can be proven safe or effective is such a short time-frame, even with advanced technology that speeds up the process.

    Id the driving force physical health or is it tainted by fnancial opportunity? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • ColevilleH2S's Avatar Nov 24, 2020 | 09:56 17
    Quote Originally Posted by dmlfarmer View Post
    ...I am really interested how many people who refuse GMOs in the food chain will accept GE vaccines...
    The anti-vaxxers and the anti-GMO crowd are typically the same folks Reply With Quote
    Nov 24, 2020 | 10:09 18
    Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
    With all due respect, sir, when my health and welfare at at stake, I will stick with a balanced approach of empirical discovery rather than hypotheticals.

    Admitting that I am in the lowest echelon of scientific instruction, I don't see how something can be proven safe or effective is such a short time-frame, even with advanced technology that speeds up the process.

    Id the driving force physical health or is it tainted by fnancial opportunity?
    The short answer is we need to accept that it cannot possibly be proven safe in such a short time frame.
    We as a society need to decide if that Risk outweighs the possible benefits. And I sincerely hope that Personal rights don't get trampled in the process, and that You have the option to wait until More evidence is available to make your decision.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Nov 24, 2020 at 10:31.
    Reply With Quote
    Nov 24, 2020 | 10:29 19 And the worst part is they have learned nothing from their failures in the climate campaign.
    Just look at this forum, the same uninformed characters who have been pushing the climate change agenda, have all moved over to the Covid debate, and
    They. Are. Using. The. Exact. Same. Methods.

    They learned nothing. Still calling on consensus, and labelling name calling and insulting anyone who points out inconsistencies.

    They are performing a huge disservice to the cause by even getting involved, after tarnishing their own reputations and the integrity of science in the preceeding debate. Let alone to repeat the same mistakes. Reply With Quote
    Nov 24, 2020 | 11:40 20
    Quote Originally Posted by fjlip View Post
    Not to worry people, EVERY politician, Dr, Nurse, care givers will be by law made to take the vaccines FIRST. We will see side effects maybe in our own relatives. Then rest can decide to take, UNLESS mandated by the need of proof to do any business, normal social interaction, leave your house.
    Well I know one thing ....... If the side affects for a vaccine are becoming a completely ignorant and stupid bastard , Trudeau already has that ! No vaccine needed for him.

    Id like to see which politicians line up for the vaccine though. Just curious . Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • fjlip's Avatar Nov 24, 2020 | 18:47 21
    Quote Originally Posted by GALAXIE500 View Post
    Well I know one thing ....... If the side affects for a vaccine are becoming a completely ignorant and stupid bastard , Trudeau already has that ! No vaccine needed for him.

    Id like to see which politicians line up for the vaccine though. Just curious .
    I might be wrong, if the EVIL political bastards all KNOW it's "control" they might graciously decline to help us VUNERABLE old guys! Watch for that. If they don't be aware. Reply With Quote
    Nov 25, 2020 | 07:48 22
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    And the worst part is they have learned nothing from their failures in the climate campaign.
    Just look at this forum, the same uninformed characters who have been pushing the climate change agenda, have all moved over to the Covid debate, and
    They. Are. Using. The. Exact. Same. Methods.

    They learned nothing. Still calling on consensus, and labelling name calling and insulting anyone who points out inconsistencies.

    They are performing a huge disservice to the cause by even getting involved, after tarnishing their own reputations and the integrity of science in the preceeding debate. Let alone to repeat the same mistakes.
    So NASA, The American Meteorological Association, NOAA, The Met in Britain, and all the various climate research centres at Universities around the world have gotten the climate change research all wrong? LOL

    Show us the evidence Einstein! Show us one credible scientific organization that says human caused climate change is not occurring.

    Since you have been unable to do this in over a year, it's obvious you are bull shitting when you say the science of human caused climate change is wrong. Give up. The only people who believe you are people who are prone to believing sketchy conspiracy theories.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Nov 25, 2020 at 08:19.
    Reply With Quote
    fjlip's Avatar Nov 25, 2020 | 10:53 23 Believe!...Hide behind Numbers and Erroneous Percentages and Guess what you can call yourself a Scientist and get on the Doles. Get enough Unproductive Welfare Experts and you can call it a Consensus. Cause numbers never lie and No Erroneous Conclusions have ever been published and Revised.
    Regarding Climate change, scientific research has ALWAYS been funded for either economic or political gain.

    Name:  Buy.jpg
Views: 98
Size:  28.4 KB
    Last edited by fjlip; Nov 25, 2020 at 10:57.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Nov 25, 2020 | 15:40 24 As I said Flipper, The only people who believe A5 are people who are prone to believing sketchy conspiracy theories. LOL Reply With Quote
    Nov 25, 2020 | 15:57 25
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    As I said Flipper, The only people who believe A5 are people who are prone to believing sketchy conspiracy theories. LOL
    Says the guy that everyone ignores or blocks? Reply With Quote

  • fjlip's Avatar Nov 25, 2020 | 16:01 26 Or believes him. Reply With Quote