The authoritarian scientific establishment

thinksaboutit
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by thinksaboutit »

lockdownquestions wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 11:44 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:21 pm Interesting,, your answer actually supports the statement you object to.

Where is your proposal of "how this focussed protection would be accomplished"?

Have a think and write it down, for us.
Ok, I apologise. Looks like English is not your first language and you might be having issues with comprehension. I've explained how focused protection can be done quite simply in my previous response to you. Suggest you use google translate if you're having difficulties understanding. Good luck.
Google translate doesn't offer a "nonsensical drivel" to "rational" translation.


JohnK
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 12:47 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by JohnK »

Useful; a good presentation, and pretty much in line with my opinion.

Nobody
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by Nobody »

Not sure whether this might interest anyone:

https://www.globalacademyjobs.com/jobde ... erts&jbe=1

CoronanationStreet
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by CoronanationStreet »

thinksaboutit wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 7:15 am
lockdownquestions wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 11:44 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:21 pm Interesting,, your answer actually supports the statement you object to.

Where is your proposal of "how this focussed protection would be accomplished"?

Have a think and write it down, for us.
Ok, I apologise. Looks like English is not your first language and you might be having issues with comprehension. I've explained how focused protection can be done quite simply in my previous response to you. Suggest you use google translate if you're having difficulties understanding. Good luck.
Google translate doesn't offer a "nonsensical drivel" to "rational" translation.
Plenty of nonsensical drivel comung out of various scientists' mouths around the world, particularly relating to masks and especially relating to children being forced to wear them all day long. Or wearing three masks rather than one I always thought four was the optimal number, but then I'm just an average member of the public who has to be drivel-ed to by scientists with self-interested political, financial and societal motivations. Shridar comes to mind, with her authoritarian views on alcohol. And then there's Fauci over the pond...40 plus years creaming money from everywhere "saving" people from AIDS. The zero covididiots are another lot, based on what certain other eminent scientists have said about the virus never going to go away (E.g. Whitty).

Given the amount of money thrown around in the UK paying perfectly healthy people to sit on their hands for a year, I'm sure those in charge could have worked and costed up a sensible focussed protection strategy. Maybe ask them? Given your qualifications you are probably more likely to be closer to them than we here are.

Nobody
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by Nobody »

This is quite interesting:

“Daszak reiterated that, until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often
largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, he said, we need to increase public understanding of the
need for MCMs such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow
the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at
the end of process, Daszak stated.”12

From a scientist involved in gain-of-function research. from here:

https://f.hubspotusercontent10.net/hubf ... ossier.pdf

This is an interesting one, you have probably all seen it already:

In the future, it will be a question of finding a way to reduce the population. We will start with the old, because as soon as he exceeds 60 to 65 years, man live longer than he produces, and that costs society dearly. Then the weak, then the useless ones, who bring nothing to society because there will always be more and more of them, and especially finally, above all, the stupid ones. Euthanasia targeting these groups. Euthanasia will have to be an essential instrument of our future societies, in all cases. We of course, will not be able to execute people or organise camps. We will get rid of them by making them believe that it is for their own good. To large a population, and for the most part unnecessary, is something economically to excessive. Socially, it is also much better for the human machine to come to an abrupt halt rather than gradually deteriorating. We won’t be able to pass intelligence tests on millions and millions of people you imagine! We will find something or cause it, a pandemic that targets certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus that will affect the old and the weak, it doesn’t matter, the weak will succumb to it, the fearful and stupid will believe it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care to have planned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of the idiots will thus be done by itself: They will go to slaughter house on their own. (The Future of Life. Jacques Attali, 1981. Interviews with Michel Salomon, collection Les Visages de l’avenir, editions Seghers).

Nobody
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by Nobody »

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/dr-pierr ... Fv9vm.html

What he discusses from about 20.00 onwards about small studies and the journals is what happens to lower class people who do shitty humanities subjects. When I did my PhD (25 years ago) I was on £4350 per year and, doing a shit subject, I accessed nothing, so I got no facilities at all. When I started, all the academics had just had what used to be called "multi-media" pcs installed in their offices and were discovering the wonders of electronic mail and the internet. First time I saw the internet I saw the rich overseas students using it and I could not understand what I was seeing. My parents did not have a terrestrial/landline phone, nor a car, so having a phone at home was alien to me. When I first saw the internet I could not understand what use it was.
My friend, who had also been unemployed and had also worked on the same, then, government scheme for the long-term unemployed did science and he was immediately introduced to computers and started using email immediately. This is a significant detail because it showed that he had been introduced to a professional sphere that had addressed the deficits accruing to him from being from a chronically poor background in the north of england that lacked a main family breadwinner and in which there were few jobs.
Doing humanities, I never met anyone via what I was doing because it was really only for the upper middle classes from the south of the UK or from abroad. Since I knew nobody who used any of these technologies, I never needed them. And then, from this, I was supposed to somehow develop a project that I could, independently, use, to secure finance to pay for a degree. All this had to be done from outside of anything institutionally. Now, what are you going to develop from a position of isolation outside of any institutional embedding? And, even if you were to, somehow, find some way, to develop something and then secure an award in (anonymous) open, national, competition, how would such conditions affect the form of your labour and, thereby, the form of the final product?
As this man says, when you do your "small studies" (or super small when you are trying to produce work from a bedroom on £83 a week that has to provide what you can manage to get together to produce the work in the first place) they are dismissed and you cannot publish anywhere that might give you a chance to make any impression.
It is not merely the field of human knowledge that is mutilated by inequalities, it is the whole of cognition itself.

Post Reply