Is science a unified institution that cannot be questioned?


“Follow the science” is a phrase repeated by the press and the politians. Science – which is a process of continual evolution based on disproving an initial hypothesis – presented in this way presumes an authoritative body of opinion, which political leaders can simply “follow”.

The science around vaccines rests on an understanding of the natural immune system. The natural immune system is complicated and not fully understood. Which hypothesis is being tested by offering one vaccine across all people?

Key Points & Evidence

In First Things, David Cayley says that "recognizing science as philosophy allows us to see that, like any knowledge whatever, it is a creature of its tools, its techniques, and its initial assumptions. Einstein’s famous remark—that the most surprising and mysterious feature of the world is that it is “comprehensible” at all—points to the most basic assumption on which physical science rests: that the world corresponds to the concepts which we have available for grasping it. Vaccine science, obviously, rests on more refined and, for that very reason, more problematic assumptions, such as our right and our duty to dominate and control for our convenience the world’s biota (in which, for present purposes, I include the viruses, barely living though they are). The point is that these are philosophic assumptions that not everyone shares—a point overlooked when the vaccination question is seen as a contest between the informed and the uninformed, or the selfish and the public spirited."


Dr Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA technology, from 23 mins. laments the lack of scientific process relating to Covid vaccines:

"It's not okay when we're going to implement authoritarian measures across the country or across the world in which we mandate everybody take this, that, or the other intervention. You darned well better have rock solid data that that's a good idea. And even then I object to doing it. I believe in the sanctity of the individual is more important than the sanctity of the collective... and this logic that we're going to vaccinate... it is outdated and grossly naïve. Vaccines are not linear. Dose response and vaccines are not linear. The immune system is really complicated and more is not always better. Sometimes more can turn off the immune system."


Dr Malcolm Kendrick, Scottish doctor, author, speaker and member of the UK HART Group on how science has become an ideology ("I have not been silenced", 3 September 2021).

If it "does not fit with the approved narrative... it is ignored. Anything that does not fit with the mask wearing, social isolating, 'vaccination will save the world' narrative is simply ignored. Or it is shouted down or censored by the self-appointed fact-checkers. Those mighty intellects who can determine what is true, and what is not. It was thoughtful of them to descend from Mount Olympus to mingle amongst feeble minded humanity and tell us what we should, and should not, be thinking. We must all be eternally grateful that the ‘Truth Gods’ now live amongst us, to firmly inform us all what, and how, we should be thinking. And shut us down if we veer from the official narrative."



The scientific process in its true form is more akin to philosophy. Today we seem to be seeing science build models and ignore anything that does not fit. What is the long-term appeal of such an approach for health and society?

Posted: 9th November 2021

Tagged: Corruption, Covid 19

Share this information: