I am well aware that the title is highly provocative, especially if you happen to call yourself a scientist with a proper PhD or MD. But, given what we have seen over the past 18 months, it is entirely appropriate. The reality is that most “scientists” – there ARE honourable and decent exceptions – are nothing more than not particularly intelligent self-interested hacks.

To understand why no self-respecting man should take a “scientist” seriously, simply because he claims to have a degree in something, we must first understand what science actually IS.

Science Defined

The following is NOT my formulation, it belongs to Our Beloved and Dreaded Supreme Dark Lord (PBUH) Vox Day the Most Merciless and Terrible. Most of you know it quite well by now. Essentially, what we call “science” is not one monolithic entity or idea – it is at least three, and these days four, different pieces stitched together into a Frakensteinian whole:

1. Scientody, the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, observation, refutation or acceptance;
2. Scientage, the body of available and testable scientific knowledge;
3. Scientistry, the profession of science – that is to say, what scientists do;
4. Scientism, the religion of science fetishism that has taken over much of the world today;

Today’s scientific “establishment” no longer pays any attention whatsoever to scientody, and has a significant (though not complete) degree of control over scientage, allowing people to see only that which is deemed “acceptable” science, rather than real science.

How do we know this? We need look no further, of course, than the Coof Scamdemic.

The High Priests of Scientism

I don’t often have kind things to say about whorenalists and presstitutes – by definition – and I rarely think much of the toilet paper substitutes for which they work. But, from time to time, even the most absorbent of those TP alternatives publishes something useful and noteworthy that actually helps us understand the world around us.

Such was the case recently, when Britain’s biggest fishwrapper, The Daily Mail, published an op-ed piece by one Ross Clark, concerning the corruption of the scientific Establishment, and the ways in which they got things so spectacularly wrong over the last 18 months.

A recent government inquiry into the subject has just published its findings, and the “Trust the SCIENCE!!!” morons have insisted that it completely vindicates their argument that politicians ignored the scientific evidence and advice and let thousands of people die in the process.

That is flatly untrue, as Mr. Clark points out:

If ministers did make an error it was not in closing their ears to scientists’ pleas – it was in failing to interrogate them properly.

The report could not be clearer on this. It asserts that other countries made better decisions specifically because their leaders used their own judgment rather than relying so exclusively on scientific advisers.

Other governments, the report claims, had ‘greater licence to take decisions more quickly’. Nor were they hamstrung by pandemic plans that proved hopelessly inadequate because they were based on a flu epidemic, not a novel coronavirus.

Britain is a global scientific leader, boasting more Nobel prizes than any country bar the United States. Our universities frequently top international league tables for the quality of scientific teaching and research.

And many British scientists conducted themselves admirably during the pandemic: not least those who designed the AstraZeneca vaccine (sold at cost) and who developed some of the first Covid tests.

No, it is one very particular group of scientists who have, as we all know by now, dominated Britain’s response to Covid: the 92 members of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies – or Sage, to use its thoroughly inappropriate acronym.

[…]

When the Government at Westminster refused at first to call a second lockdown, Sage’s sub-committee on modelling, SPI-M, produced a frightening-looking graph showing deaths peaking at 4,000 a day by the middle of December – a graph which did nudge the Prime Minister into calling that second lockdown. Yet as others pointed out, the graph was already out of date when it was published.

Sage has continued getting it wrong ever since, most recently on September 8 when it predicted 6,000 hospitalisations per day by early October as schools and colleges returned. Fortunately, the Government resisted calls for school closures or another lockdown – because the number of people being admitted to hospital has fallen since then, from around 1,000 per day to 800 or so.

‘Follow the science,’ we were told ad nauseum at the start of the pandemic. As today’s report makes clear, that’s exactly what the Government did in the first three months of the crisis – by bowing to Sage’s every recommendation.

Images and Words

The article goes on to give us, in graphical format, a very good idea of just how badly wrong the boffins in PommieBastardLande really were:

Here’s another good picture:

How about that… the best “scientists” in the country couldn’t model mortality and infection rates accurately if their lives, and the lives and well-being of LITERALLY MILLIONS of their countrymen, depended on it.

I’ve worked in banking and capital markets for years. You couldn’t find a more disgusting example of industrial corruption and incompetence if you tried. Yet, in financial markets, if you make a prediction that is FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT OFF from reality, you know what happens?

You get fired.

Yet this doesn’t seem to happen to the midwit hacks who insisted that they were right and our eyes and ears were wrong.

Why is that?

Because, first and foremost, the word “scientist” does not mean what you think it means.

Define a “Scientist”

When most people think of a “scientist”, they think of an inordinately bright and gifted individual in a lab coat, dispassionately going where the evidence takes him, doing experiments, writing papers, and fearlessly exploring the boundaries of human knowledge. A “scientist” should, in theory, be in the top 1% of talent and intelligence, surely.

This is a laughably stupid caricature impressed upon us at a young age by corrupted and broken adolt edjoomuhcayshun systems.

The first thing to understand about most “scientists” is that very few of them are actually all that smart. Here is a graph that plots IQ distributions across multiple professions:

Take a look down toward the bottom, and you will find the “natural science” types – people who work in physical and life sciences, as well as in mathematical fields.

See where the 50th percentile falls?

It’s right around the 110 level.

This means that the average natural scientist is not, in fact, particularly smarter than the average individual – and is considerably less intelligent than the average medical worker. Hence the title of this post – on average, natural scientists are nothing more than midwits.

The 90th percentile falls around the 133 level, or thereabouts. And that’s pretty damn good. But what that means is, less than10% of people who work in the natural sciences are smarter than ME.

And given what an utter dumbass I can be at times, that should scare the shit out of you.

The second thing to understand is that scientists are not disinterested seekers of truth. They never were. Once you break up “science” into the 4 sub-categories I mentioned above – again, not my heuristic – you will quickly realise that science as a profession, i.e. scientistry, is just as susceptible to corruption, malfeasance, and wrongdoing as any other.

Once you understand that scientists compete for grants and funding to carry out their research, you will understand that they can very easily bend to corruption in order to publish whatever gets them the most money.

Always Follow the Money

That, after all, is how the so-called “climate change” scam got serious legs. Governments realised that “global warming” would allow them to greatly increase their power and influence over the economy and people’s lives, so they started funding research into that idiocy. Big companies realised that they could collude with regulators to block smaller and more efficient competitors from entering the market by forcing them to adapt to onerous and expensive climate mandates. Universities saw where the money was and changed their direction accordingly, setting up huge research centres for “climate change” and its associated effects.

Today, we don’t even know what is and is not a “climate change” field. When you have railway engineers like the late Rajendra Pachauri, or mechanical engineers like Bill Nye the “Science” Guy, being taken seriously as “climate scientists”, then plainly there is no such thing as a “climate scientist” in any meaningful sense.

To be very clear, I do not claim that engineering is an unworthy field. I actually hold engineers in much higher esteem than I do most scientists – because, unlike scientists, engineers have to adhere to sound practices and produce replicable, reliable, transparent results. If they don’t, PEOPLE DIE.

But most engineers know and understand the need to stay in their lane. Most “scientists”, these days, do not. And why is that? Because, again, we as a society have given them a degree of respect and status that they absolutely do not deserve.

The Dogma of Science

We are in a colossal mess with respect to scientists in multiple fields. Thousands of people around the world have died unnecessarily from or with the Coof, simply because corporate and government-funded “scientists” have insisted upon the use of dangerous and unproven gene therapies (they are NOT vaccines) over safe, reliable, and effective existing drugs that we know work quite well.

Nobody else in the developed world needs to die from the Coof anymore. We know, based on actual experiments done by actual doctors in the field, of several protocols that have proven highly effective in stopping the disease. Both the MATH+ and Zelenko Protocols rely on drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and work in real life with no serious side effects when administered in the correct doses by skilled professionals. (That last part is very important. Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin can, in fact, be highly toxic when you exceed their recommended dosages.)

And this leads us to a very serious issue, one that we are already dealing with:

We don’t have scientists anymore. We have, at most, a very thick layer of very incompetent, not particularly intelligent, highly overpaid, and seriously unaccountable priests of the Religion of Science, who cannot be fired or tried for malfeasance.

To be sure, this is not universally true. I don’t have much respect of any kind for government bodies in India, for instance, but the Indian Bar Association there has launched a lawsuit against one of the country’s own people – WHO chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan – for her recommendation against ivermectin as a treatment against the Lung Pao Sicken. This is a heartening development.

But, in general, “scientists” like Imperial College’s Bonking Boffin, Neil Ferguson, and the SAGE group’s Sir Patrick Vallance and Chris Witty, can get away with BLINDINGLY stupid recommendations like lockdowns and mass vaccination campaigns, that do not work and lead to pointless suffering and even death. They are never fired or held accountable for their stupidity. Instead, they get promotions and rewards.

There aren’t too many situations that can appropriately be compared with the Catholic Church’s horrible paedophile priest scandals, which have seen hundreds of thousands of victims abused over decades. This situation certainly can be. Indeed, the modern High Priests of Science are objectively worse than any of the predatory homosexuals that currently occupy high office within the Catholic Church.

Abusive Catholic priests can get away with abusing dozens, maybe hundreds, of victims over many years. They absolutely deserve to be impaled, without grease, for doing that. I would gladly involve myself in chopping the wood to fashion the stakes – that is how much I hate the evil priests who do such things to the innocent.

But the High Priests of Science can get away with ruining the lives of MILLIONS over a six-month period, and never be brought to account.

You tell me: who is more deserving of the hangman’s noose? Or, y’know, outright scourging and crucifixion? (I tell you, the Romans had a rather refined sense of justice when it came to the absolute worst of their criminals.)

Conclusion – Science Set Free

How, then, do we get rid of this parasitic professional class of dogmatists who routinely destroy lives, ignore alternative points of view, push untested and ineffective treatments upon an unsuspecting populace, and act as if they themselves are well above the law?

I don’t have any good answers here, to be very honest, but a good starting point might be to dispense with the myth that science and faith are at war.

This is a more subtle point than it might seem.

Everything that I have written above stems from the refusal of scientists to be beholden to a moral compass of any kind. The Enlightenment led to many amazing discoveries and ideas, but its greatest failure was its jettisoning of traditional Christian moral authority, in favour of a misguided and frankly deluded belief in the primacy of secular humanistic attitudes.

When you start with the belief that Man is his own moral arbiter, you then fall into the trap of thinking that moral rules can be bent to suit your own needs. That is partly why so many so-called “scientists” around the world argued in favour of lockdowns – they didn’t stop to think about whether that made any kind of sense, whether they worked, or what the cost would be. They thought ONLY in terms of stopping a disease that, actually, isn’t that bad.

But, when you start with the belief that morality comes from God alone, who determines what is right and wrong, and that He created a rational and ordered Universe with clear rules that we can then try to explore to understand Him… well, that is a radically different mode of thought. When you start with that belief system, you realise pretty quickly that Man has certain fundamental rights that come from God alone, and you do not get to dick with them, no matter how much you might want to.

In other words, you gain a bit of humility, and thereby a bit of grace. You stop seeing yourself as an infallible beacon of truth and knowledge, and start seeing yourself as flawed, fallible, Fallen – as a man, who must obey a moral code.

The truth is that science and Christian faith have never been in conflict. Scientists just think that they were, mostly because of the very badly misunderstood Galileo Affair. (Incidentally, the fact that most modern “scientists” cannot figure out that the Catholic Church was actually the aggrieved party in that whole kerfuffle, should tell you everything you need to know about whether you can trust their judgement.)

As a more general rule, the only real way forward is to educate yourself in the realities of the scientific method, as opposed to the scientific profession, and exercise proper discernment. A real scientist makes predictions that are testable, verifiable, and open. If he is wrong, he admits it – probably with ill grace, since scientists are after all prideful, but the sin of pride can be forgiven if one confesses and repents. And when he gets it right, he doesn’t demand that his critics be persecuted and hounded out of the profession.

That kind of man is about as common as a diamond in a coal mine. But, until and unless we start holding scientists accountable for their words and deeds, they will continue to get away with lies and literal murder of the very societies that they have brainwashed into venerating them.