Asking challenging questions about a new, experimental medical treatment isn’t “anti-science.” It’s anti-authoritarian.
What today’s medical fascists and their hangers-on are objecting to when you do this is your failure to obey a preselected set of authorities, chosen not by you, but by them. They’re objecting to your insistence on independent thought and judgement if you don’t trust their “authoritative sources,” which are typically the pronouncements of government agencies. That those sources have already given the rational and active-minded plenty of evidence to mistrust them only makes that gambit even more outrageously presumptuous.
Actual scientists, in fact, disagree a great deal on these issues. You can tell that by the fervor and desperation with which they’re censored when they try to speak up. So these controversies are less about science than they are an intimidation game about who gets to claim the mantle of science.
That “intimidation game” is a racket staged by people that Ayn Rand called “looters of the spirit.” They see the great accomplishments of science, the profound benefits it has brought to human life, and the respect and prestige that it has rightly earned. And then, like all thieves, they try to usurp and steal it. They do that by taking control of its funding, and by creating “official” government sources staffed by boards of bureaucrats that they say represent science itself. And they do it by offering bribes of money and power to team with fascist, crony researchers and “businesses” to support them.
If you dare to disagree and disobey, you’re accused — in the 21st century’s most breathtaking act of doublespeak — of being “anti-science.” And if you so much as consider thinking that those scientists with the integrity to dissent from their racket and speak out about it might have something valid to say — despite facing attacks, open censorship, and threats to their livelihood — you’re dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist.”
They are Looters of the Spirit, and they’ve STOLEN the earned respect that science should be accorded in our society. Those of us who genuinely respect science — when pursued honestly — must not allow them to get away with it.