from FreeNZ

One of the greatest tragedies of the lockstep ‘Covid Response’ by the majority of world governments, is the rapid and ever-increasing loss of public confidence in ‘science’.

Here, an NZDSOS thinker and researcher, who wishes to remain anonymous, mounts the case that there are still reasons to respect what remains of sound and ethical science, while also fully acknowledging the extent to which ‘the speed of science’ has taken the world off track, in the last two corrupted years.


Science, applied as intended, in a genuine spirit of inquiry, is deeply honourable. At its heart, it is meant to serve as a sincere attempt to answer questions in the continuing and ever-deepening pursuit of truth.

Whatever our beliefs about current science may be, it still offers us a critical tool through its potential to be a framework for controlled observations. Honouring its fundamental tenets can draw us closer to substantive truth, even when it cannot hope to explain everything in the world of phenomena.

Sadly, the events of the last two years have seen a surreptitious erosion of the scientific method. A largely unsuspecting public has been shepherded into an emergent false doctrine, guided by the errant and proselytising corporate media-government complex.

Rigorous observation has been replaced by projections derived from faulty modelling of data. Long-held scientific definitions have been covertly changed. Data has been doctored and withheld. Opinion from supposed ‘experts’, has been propagandised as irrefutable truth. What has emerged is a carefully contrived facsimile, a doppelgänger dressed in the vestments of science. This fakery has adopted the language of science but has completely overlooked its objective foundation. The term “scientism” has been coined in order to differentiate this pseudo-scientific phenomenon, from its authentic, sincere, and trustworthy counterpart.

Real science is chronological and sequential, advancing our human understanding through the painstaking processes of accumulation and consilience [the principle that evidence, from independent, unrelated sources, can “converge” on strong conclusions]. Information streams, from converging lines of evidence, are methodically assembled, to produce a congruent body of data.

Early in the pandemic, it was clear that the release of a new class of vaccines based on the mRNA gene transfer platform was intended to form a major part of the Covid management strategy. These products were rapidly brought to market under the Trump administration, in an operation famously dubbed “Warp-speed”. While it might have been anticipated that certain liberties would be taken in the name of expedience, it is doubtful that anyone could have anticipated the extent to which the integrity of the scientific method was to be subverted.

Rather than the congruent body of data that we might have expected, we are now faced with a data void, in a scientific abyss.

To bridge the vast gap between the emphatic public health messaging from politicians on these vaccines, and the serious limits of our actual, substantive scientific knowledge about them, so-called ‘expert’ opinion has been injected into the void. Sadly, the general public is unaware that expert opinion, which lacks substantive supporting data, offers flawed predictive value – especially when new and uncharacterised technologies are involved.

This limited capacity to predict complexity is a human failing that lies at the heart of the “perfect storm” which is emerging in the aftermath of the vaccination roll-out. It leads to three essential questions:

1.) How did we get here?

2.) What are the boundaries which differentiate science from conjecture?

3.) Where has presumption surpassed, and supplanted, what can reasonably be inferred from the supporting data?

The marketing slogan “safe and effective” was an early tell. For the marketing of Distaval (Thalidomide) by Distillers Ltd, the unabashed use of a slogan still stands in infamy. This should have piqued curiosity in the Covid approach1.

In the pre-election leadership debates, before the covid-19 vaccines had even been brought to the New Zealand market, the “safe and effective” mantra was recited ad nauseum, with an unfathomable, non-partisan uniformity.

The early safety and efficacy data on the Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with the infamous “95% effective” slogan used to herald it as a triumph of human endeavour over Nature. This became the clarion call to take up what was claimed to be a miraculous intervention. It was promoted as the “only way” to end the pandemic.

Much has been said about the difference between absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR).

Read the rest