Computer modelling is taking over from empirical science

http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/07/25/covid-fear/#comment-171386 

The power to discover, define and set parameters for treatment without transparency and accountability can understandably operate a 'god-complex' - not that I see God as coercive - but historically, lording it over is part of demanding sacrifice of the people so as to persist in the role of 'protecting' them. But the free and willing gift is completely different from an exacted coercion.

So yes, 'coming out' in a willingness to question the 'god and the protected' is likely to illicit the 'Herodian response' - whether of stamping on the movement before it can become a threat or of acceding power to the persistent and vocal lobby and it mob.

Dr Andrew Kaufman comes out in a calm and relational willingness and anyone listening would at least be moved to a curiosity to re-evaluate what is presumed 'settled science' but may be more of an institutionally systemic consensus around reputation, funding and career.

Some after listening to him and others who challenge the mainstream virological narratives, become polarised in reaction so as to then shout 'there is no virus' or some such - as if that contributes or serves anything but an equally polarised reaction in response.

So I appreciate that you addressed a core issue and that is of definitively identifying the agent - and establishing it is THE cause. Computer modelling is taking over from empirical science - and humanity is largely willing - so far - to downgrade itself to run with a managed computer model.

The mind - with or without computing power - is not all it is cracked up to be. But logic can run on false premises such as to crack up under conflicting and incoherent results.

The Science must follow the evidence and reformulate real questions to account for it. But who wants to be crucified by the mob or the authorities for witnessing to truth that they don't want to hear, accept or embrace? The compliance under fear and control agenda seems to be the wide and easy way... but to what does it deliver us?

I suggest there are other equally unsettling disclosures in the wash - and that the attempt to stuff Jack back in the box will painfully fail.

#2

(General agreement with your comment) but the use of the term ‘crystallised is interesting because even the BEST current means of identification – electron microscopy, effectively crytalises a living process and may very well introduce artefacts that confound the results.

But you were talking of genetic sequencing. This field was very heavily invested in as the inauguration of a new era of medicine, and pre touted as part of attracting funding and support, but failed to bring forth its expected returns. However that does not mean a 4th Industrial Biotech Revolution (Reich?) is not being rolled out regardless – in the self-same way virology persisted regardless of solidly established science as a trained way to see the Emperor’s New Clothes.

The use of computer modelling in ‘reconstituting’ fragments that as your infer could be anything is preset to what makes sense to the researcher or those who set the parameters of the research.

A living body is not stuff randomly floating about in an inert medium but an intelligent field of recognition, communication and exchange. All structuring of form and function includes the breaking down and reconstitution of form and function – including the elimination or ‘storing and encapsulating of what has no belonging and cant currently be eliminated. While miraculous in its capacity to function as it does, the body itself is clearly not invulnerable – and itself breaks down to its constituents within a larger context. There are a few who made forms of microscopy that could observe life in vivo but discovery and full acceptance can be separated by decades or more. Ignaz Semmelweis got a statue and a college, but long after being debarred and shoved into an asylum and beaten up to die of his injuries.