This is a good example of how studies and their data can be manipulated (tortured) until they give up the results you want. The output is junk science. Emphasis on junk, not science.
These last two articles were tremendously helpful, because the average lay person has been conditioned to just accept that any "scientific" study is authoritative; to be accepted without question. And, further, the average person is completely flat footed when it comes to understanding and articulating why scientific pronouncements - usually communicated to the average person via a misleadingly short and unnuanced click bait headline or uncritical fluff piece - do not have to be blindly accepted as Truth spoken by the voice of God.
This whole charade is quite effective, however, because the average reader is put in a conundrum when the next scientific truth is shallowly reported, because increasingly it seems that of the incredible daily volume of publication, only scientific papers useful to various agendas get reported. Thus, it's important that the constant drip of scientific "truths" do not escape scrutiny and surreptitiously become part of the foundation of truth on which new policy will be built. But who has the time or intelligence to determine whether each new scientific finding is sound or not? Even experts in the field can struggle to pick apart a well-designed but fraudulent scientific paper. The coronadoom charade proved this many times over, and, indeed, some frauds are so well constructed you would be a fool not to fall for it. And so the average Joe then must either care enough to find a trusted source to analyze these things (and good luck with that - as the even the fact-checking apparatus has become compromised, and further most people are not equipped to judge between competing experts) or perhaps just disregard scientific pronouncements without any basis whatsoever, which is its own special kind of error. There is a sort of dangerous hubris lurking behind the person who disregards positions outright for this or that seemingly ideological basis.
To put this conundrum differently, people are searching for a firm foundation. They are brainwashed in school and told constantly afterwards that the only truths that can be relied upon are scientific ones - particularly as it pertains to making public policy - and that no other way of knowing is valid, and yet intuitively people suspect there is some great fraud being perpetrated on them although few people have the ability to truly understand the exact nature of the fraud. Worse, some of the most vocal dissenters of the scientific fraud are themselves fraudulent in their own way, and so the people seem to reject one tyrant only to fall prey to a different kind of tyrannical charlatan. They reject the demonic game played out for 8 years under Obama only to run straight into the arms of their false messiah, Trump. They reject much of the coronadoom nonsense because they intuitively recognized the deception, but then fell prey to almost blindly accepting any and all covid contrarians. What a mess ensues when society sets about to deceive. Who to trust?
This is a good example of how studies and their data can be manipulated (tortured) until they give up the results you want. The output is junk science. Emphasis on junk, not science.
These last two articles were tremendously helpful, because the average lay person has been conditioned to just accept that any "scientific" study is authoritative; to be accepted without question. And, further, the average person is completely flat footed when it comes to understanding and articulating why scientific pronouncements - usually communicated to the average person via a misleadingly short and unnuanced click bait headline or uncritical fluff piece - do not have to be blindly accepted as Truth spoken by the voice of God.
This whole charade is quite effective, however, because the average reader is put in a conundrum when the next scientific truth is shallowly reported, because increasingly it seems that of the incredible daily volume of publication, only scientific papers useful to various agendas get reported. Thus, it's important that the constant drip of scientific "truths" do not escape scrutiny and surreptitiously become part of the foundation of truth on which new policy will be built. But who has the time or intelligence to determine whether each new scientific finding is sound or not? Even experts in the field can struggle to pick apart a well-designed but fraudulent scientific paper. The coronadoom charade proved this many times over, and, indeed, some frauds are so well constructed you would be a fool not to fall for it. And so the average Joe then must either care enough to find a trusted source to analyze these things (and good luck with that - as the even the fact-checking apparatus has become compromised, and further most people are not equipped to judge between competing experts) or perhaps just disregard scientific pronouncements without any basis whatsoever, which is its own special kind of error. There is a sort of dangerous hubris lurking behind the person who disregards positions outright for this or that seemingly ideological basis.
To put this conundrum differently, people are searching for a firm foundation. They are brainwashed in school and told constantly afterwards that the only truths that can be relied upon are scientific ones - particularly as it pertains to making public policy - and that no other way of knowing is valid, and yet intuitively people suspect there is some great fraud being perpetrated on them although few people have the ability to truly understand the exact nature of the fraud. Worse, some of the most vocal dissenters of the scientific fraud are themselves fraudulent in their own way, and so the people seem to reject one tyrant only to fall prey to a different kind of tyrannical charlatan. They reject the demonic game played out for 8 years under Obama only to run straight into the arms of their false messiah, Trump. They reject much of the coronadoom nonsense because they intuitively recognized the deception, but then fell prey to almost blindly accepting any and all covid contrarians. What a mess ensues when society sets about to deceive. Who to trust?