I don't know how it is now, but when I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, science was to one degree or another a required subject in the public schools, but not a terribly popular one. It is not difficult to hide important things using science and technology that most of the population does not understand. Instead, they reply upon on o…
I don't know how it is now, but when I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, science was to one degree or another a required subject in the public schools, but not a terribly popular one. It is not difficult to hide important things using science and technology that most of the population does not understand. Instead, they reply upon on others to interpret, a weak link.
How can people follow something that they don't understand? They follow the interpreters instead, believing that they are following the science.
This doesn't account for all the scientists that also appeared to be fooled. Many would have been "out of their field" with this, but so was I and I still recognized something seriously wrong and went into the literature to learn what I needed. You might be able to address that better than me.
Very few of us can integrate disparate fields of knowledge and so crave new ideas that we are willing not only to admit when we were wrong, but thank those who gave us the knowledge that crushed everything we thought we knew.
I suspected there was something fishy about the AIDS narrative, but didn't know enough to see this as a repeat. I knew enough about the immune system to see that we were being lied to, investigated PCR "testing" with which I was not familiar and saw the fraud, and knew enough about protein synthesis to view the "vaccines" as a premeditated disaster. So there were different ways to recognize what was going on.
That survivors of iatrogenic injury could be so taken in speaks to the power of propaganda and fearmongering over those unaware of such things.
I don't know how it is now, but when I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, science was to one degree or another a required subject in the public schools, but not a terribly popular one. It is not difficult to hide important things using science and technology that most of the population does not understand. Instead, they reply upon on others to interpret, a weak link.
How can people follow something that they don't understand? They follow the interpreters instead, believing that they are following the science.
This doesn't account for all the scientists that also appeared to be fooled. Many would have been "out of their field" with this, but so was I and I still recognized something seriously wrong and went into the literature to learn what I needed. You might be able to address that better than me.
Very few of us can integrate disparate fields of knowledge and so crave new ideas that we are willing not only to admit when we were wrong, but thank those who gave us the knowledge that crushed everything we thought we knew.
I suspected there was something fishy about the AIDS narrative, but didn't know enough to see this as a repeat. I knew enough about the immune system to see that we were being lied to, investigated PCR "testing" with which I was not familiar and saw the fraud, and knew enough about protein synthesis to view the "vaccines" as a premeditated disaster. So there were different ways to recognize what was going on.
That survivors of iatrogenic injury could be so taken in speaks to the power of propaganda and fearmongering over those unaware of such things.
It speaks to the power of Kayfabe