In the world of science, biases lurk beneath the surface, tainting the work of even the most revered experts. In her new book, Expired – Covid the untold story, Dr. Clare Craig reveals how beliefs, fear and selective evidence have shaped the Covid debate and beyond. Here’s an excerpt.
How can science be so muddled up with beliefs? Surely, at the heart of science there is neutrality with evidence leading decision making? Unfortunately, in reality, scientists are subject to all the flaws of human decision making. All scientists. No-one owns the truth. Given enough time, everyone will be proved wrong about some of their beliefs. Some people find that very easy to forget. Some scientists seem to believe that no future generation will look back at us and laugh about what we got wrong, despite that happening for every previous generation. Being open to accepting error requires adopting contrary views and handling the inevitable cognitive dissonance that comes with doing that, which is unpleasant and takes work.
Science progresses, not when more evidence is found that supports what is already believed, but when evidence proves the conventional narrative wrong. It is hard to prove certain things are right just through experience. If you believe that all swans are white then finding more and more white swans adds weight to that belief but it does not prove it. In contrast, finding a single black swan disproves your belief. Science progresses by proving theories wrong rather than collecting more and more evidence that fits the existing theory.
People hate being wrong (including me). Nevertheless, the way science is approached is to take a belief, a hypothesis, and set out to see if it can be proved wrong. First you think of an explanation of the world that would mean you can explain something, that is your hypothesis. Then you set out to prove that the interpretation is wrong. If you were wrong you have progressed. The foundation of science is the exploration of being wrong. Every scientific breakthrough has proven those in powerful positions to have been wrong. Each one has had to be fought for and many have taken years to be accepted.
The obvious counter to scientists who believe they are omniscient is that the complexity of the world far exceeds the ability of one person to understand. Even within a niche specialty, there will be plenty of areas which are poorly understood. Therefore, if we want to improve our collective understanding of the world, it must be done through listening to every voice and not letting those who believe they are omniscient drown out those with interesting questions.
Any debate about Covid was heard only by select audiences willing to engage. There were very few scientific breakthroughs. Instead there was a strange inversion. Normally, old established assumptions believed by the majority are challenged by a minority with new evidence. With Covid the majority beliefs were based on new assumptions and when they were challenged it was done so on the basis of old, established evidence. For example, the idea that natural immunity would not be protective, despite decades of experience around immune memory, was ignored. Why was this old, established evidence being ignored?
It was not simply that some scientists were being fooled into believing something outside of their discipline. The belief that catastrophe was around the corner meant that reassuring evidence was considered dangerous. The focus was on preventing catastrophe, so anything that distracted people from that goal must surely be, not only wrong, but immoral. From that foundation arose the ill-founded fears that everyone was susceptible to each variant, that the healthy or asymptomatic were spreading disease, that viral spread could only be stopped by intervention and that every intervention would work.
In order to maintain these incorrect assumptions there needed to be distortion of the truth. Aside from plain old errors, there are three key ways in which the evidence can be exaggerated, misrepresented and distorted to allow scientists to defend their preconceived ideas. I have called this the Evidence Manipulation Triad and both sides of the Covid debates are guilty of using some of these techniques. The three elements are:
1. Extrapolating
2. Excusing
3. Excluding
EXTRAPOLATING
Extrapolating happens when weak evidence is given overly significant weight or when evidence is synthesised. Synthesised evidence comes in three flavours:
a.) Modelled results based on assumptions only
b.) Weak evidence that is adjusted to produce more impressive results
c.) Evidence that addresses only part of the question at hand
The close contact transmission model was based on a closed-minded understanding of the mechanisms through which germs can spread persisting as a hangover from debates taking place over a hundred years ago. Extrapolating from evidence that bad smells were not the source of disease led to an inability to conceive of the notion that viruses could transmit through the air. Worse still, the mistaken idea that infectious particles would almost all fall straight to the ground was based on a model of droplet dispersion with a mistake at its very heart, yet was extrapolated and used in public health guidance for many years. Additionally, some, myself included, extrapolated from the mathematics of the first wave, showing most the population were not susceptible, and assumed the epidemic was over in summer 2020.
EXCUSING
Excusing happens when evidence is presented that contradicts the scientist’s current belief. A scientist should think openly about all implications of the new evidence and devise several new hypotheses to test. Instead, our reaction is often to find reasons why this evidence might be wrong. Perhaps it was measured incorrectly, or the sample was biased or there was some factor that was not controlled for that meant things did not progress as expected. For example, the public health authorities were so wedded to close contact being the only route for transmission that evidence of spread from unknown sources was excused as being due to asymptomatic spread. Similarly, Von Pettenkofer, the miasma proponent, who had seen the germ theory evidence discounted it because of years of expert knowledge about bad air and must have made excuses for that evidence in his mind before drinking the cholera culture and catching the disease.
EXCLUDING
Excluding happens when there are no excuses to be made and instead the evidence is totally ignored. The paradoxes of outbreaks in remote locations like Antarctica and on boats at sea or the genetically identical variants of influenza appearing simultaneously across the northern hemisphere even in eras before international travel are totally ignored. By excluding such evidence, scientists may overlook crucial information that could enhance their understanding of the phenomenon being studied.
The way science has historically handled these biases is through open debate. In theory, if all voices are heard and the evidence is presented from every angle then the conflicting evidence becomes apparent. Further experiments or measurements can then be carried out to clarify the point of contention. In practice, further work is only carried out if it can attract funding. Funding is almost all secured through powerful institutions which are often either linked to government or, directly or indirectly to industry. There was no funding for work that challenged the official Covid narrative.
It was a struggle to be heard, especially for those working free of charge and without a job title or institutional backing and it was worrying to see preprint servers, where submissions can be made prior to peer review, rejecting papers from established professors. The editors of the journal Science commented on how they had discussed whether it was “in the public interest to publish the findings” before printing a peer reviewed paper. The danger is clear. Though this is just one example – inspired by a superficially benign motive – the question arises as to whether other editors filter publications, not because they are unreliable, but because the findings are not politically helpful, creating a marked bias in the published literature.
Breadth and depth of scientific knowledge is immense. Too much for anyone to keep on top of. To keep up, people trust the experts and take things on faith. Because the majority of the population are taking things on faith, a consensus answer takes on immense power. It is hard to weigh up the evidence yourself and admit uncertainty. It is much easier to dismiss someone who is scientifically questioning the consensus by claiming they are mistaken. In many cases, the background knowledge required to be able to carry out an assessment is not within reach anyway, so the consensus will win by default. The shortcut of believing what authorities say and what the majority believed did not favour the truth around Covid.
Dr. Clare Craig is a diagnostic pathologist and Co-Chair of the HART group. She is the author of Expired – Covid the untold story.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well with covid it’s not so much a question of how as why. The answer is surely that human nature is flawed and scientists are not immune from the same character flaws that afflict us all. A related question would be to what extent some of these “scientists” were “getting things wrong” (cock-up) as opposed to “lying through their teeth for evil ends”.
Should also say that the author is an absolute bloody superstar.
She’s more than that – she’s a Saint.
What’s that old saying? Question: How do you know when a politician is lying? Answer: When he opens his mouth.
GP’s are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
A&E Doctors are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
Consultants are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
ICU Doctors are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
ICU consultants are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
Nurses are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
Paramedics are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
Epidemiologist are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
Virologists are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
Nobel prize winning Epidemiologists are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
Nobel prize winning Virologists are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
Politicians are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
Journalists are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
Skeptics are not immune to Mass Hysteria.
The only natural immunity to Mass Hysteria is an understanding of what it is, the history of Mass Hysteria, how it manifests and what the symptoms are.
When you see people duct taped in bin liners and wearing an N95 respirator doing their shopping and following the arrows on the floor in the supermarket, that’s a big clue that you’re in a Mass Hysteria outbreak
If you believe that the person telling you that you are in a Mass Hysteria outbreak is ACTUALLY the one who is insane, then you’re in a Mass Hysteria outbreak.
And the other side of the coin is that certain sharp traders are open to the financial opportunities created by it. No shortage of that.
Exactly. Opportunists.
Slightly off topic, but I was interested in your book, and ordered one via A. Allegedly, it has been delivered to their Locker in a local supermarket, but when I tried to collect it, there was a fault on the Locker, which would not open. It’s almost impossible to report it in a normal fashion, unless one wants to shell out for a long phone call on an 0800 number, so we’ll see. There was someone else trying to collect something else from the same place, so it could be the same problem.
More related to the matter in hand, as a retired engineer from the railway industry, it seems to me that the related cultural background is strongly influenced by money. Many concepts are economically unacceptable to the organisation involved. However, it could be that many wild ideas related to Covid-19 were badly informed about the financial consequences, while some of them were grabbed hold of as a commercial opportunity.
Dr Craig has a conventional Popperian view of science – one black swan disproves the hypothesis that swans are white. But science is messier than that – especially when decisions have to be made in a limited time and with limited evidence. If a theory is well established (e.g. limiting contact between people will reduce the chances of passing on respiratory infection) then if there is an apparent counterexample it may be perfectly reasonable not to reject the theory but query the counterexample. To take an extreme case, if we discover a planet that appears to contravene the laws of motion we don’t throw out the laws of motion, we ask what is strange about the planet.
(e.g. limiting contact between people will reduce the chances of passing on respiratory infection
lol
Are you sure your example is actually scientific? You say less contact, but anything free in the air is likely to be breathed at a great distance, so what does contact have to do with it? You argument seems to support isolation, ie lockdown, but the evidence says it was not effective, so why do it again? In fact the evidence says that the Covid jabs increased the chance of infection, and were very harmful in other ways, yet they were not banned at all, just mandated that everyone must have them! You say limited time, but there were 2 years to recognise some of these things! Competent people could have got the beginnings of these conclusions within a few weeks. This did not happen because SAGE and others in Government were revelling in power. Counter suggestions were ignored, and lies were presented to the people by allegedly “Experts” pretty much every day. Science was not followed at all, with dire results. The same can be said of “Climate change” and the MSM.
Which ‘one’ thing do you think she is wrong about and which ‘one’ thing is the black swan?
As the entire infrastructure was wrong pretty much from beginning to end?
When they started the first lies…pandemic…PCR….died within 28 days etc…..it was pretty obvious that the whole thing wasn’t based on any real science….or scientific method….
Are you OK MTF? You seem even more odd that usual today.
Fine thanks but confused by your comment as this is my first post today. Maybe not posting is odd?
Nope. I am just comparing with your past comments.
There was a perfectly good Pandemic Preparedness Plan that should have been kept to and was until N Ferguson pipped up with his ridiculous SISO “modelling” that panicked Johnson and had us all figuratively running around like headless chickens. And before you go blah de blah etcetera one word – SWEDEN.
Several people seem to have taken this comment which I made yesterday as indicating that I think lockdowns as practiced in the UK were successful. I didn’t mean to imply that. I was just interested in Craig’s rather naïve view of science (in my opinion).
….That’s because the truth is often underwhelming and simple…
and that’s why ‘The Science’™️ has to come with bells whistles and ‘global’ solutions…
Except in Sweeden they did not lock down and their infections were not any worse. —————-But science has a method .You have a hypothesis and compare that to observations. If the observations do not match the hypothesis then quite simply it is WRONG, No ifs or buts. There are numerous examples of the facts not fitting the theory in the climate change issue. But when people have decided what is true 20 years ago and have pontificated to friends and family about it, it is very hard for them to change their mind and they become like a hammer that sees everything as a nail. In other words they have a severe dose of confirmation bias. In science you question everything, and that is all genuine science is about. Science is not a dictatorship where truth is decided by a committee and then defended like a castle with a moat around it ——PS Your analogy with swans is a poor one. It is about the most extreme example you could possibly find to justify your idea that science as we knew it should be replaced by the post modern version of consensus science that makes decisions based on a show of hands from government funded data adjusters.
Sadly they didnt get anything wrong, financially.
Masks don’t work since the Common Cold Unit.
Epidemics don’t grow exponentially since at least 1927.
“The belief that catastrophe was around the corner meant that reassuring evidence was considered dangerous”.
This perfectly sums up not just covid but anthropogenic climate change. A lot of people are, quite rightly, concerned about the future of humanity/nature/the planet but don’t want to be told that actually there isn’t really that much to be worried about. I liken their response to someone who thinks they might have cancer but is told that the lump is actually benign. Only an idiot would say “doctor you’re wrong, it has to be cancer”, any rational person would rejoice on hearing the good news.
But it’s so simple really.
Disease is alaways caused by pathogens so kill the pathogen and the patient will be fine. Better still, spend inordinate amounts of money proving that a mystery disease is caused by a pathogen so elusive that nobody can actually find it. Aka AIDS. Maybe Covid. Maybe even Virus.
But maybe Bechamp was correct…
The above basic model has existed as gospel for hundreds of years and every medical student is inculcated with it, eg, vaccines have saved millions of lives. And should you have the temerity to question then you are A Very Bad Person who will cost countless lives by spreading misinformation.
This, by A Midwestern Doctor, explains why around 80% of the population and virtually all medics, seem programmed to follow the narrative –
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/filters-in-the-age-of-information
Finally a huge thanks to Doctor Craig and similar.
Thank God for people like you.
In fact the very existance of any virus is being strongly questioned, and so far zero virologists have been prepared to offer any proof of existance. Their experimental techniques are circular, and no controls are used so the results are precicely what was wanted in the first place. A pure sample of Covid has never been produced, only a mishmash of all manner of stuff from respiratory tracts, sorted out by a computer program. The method has never been show to be accurate, because there has never been a pure sample, see circular! Look here, these two fine Scientists are banned from youtube, I wonder why: odysee.com/@drsambailey:c
I’ve no doubt that virus actually exist but it’s a question of definition – there are apparently about 40 million separate bits of molecular structures bonded together which most scientists call viruses in every cubic metre of air.. There are also about 40 trillion of them inside our bodies.
We would not exist without these entities but the real question is to what extent – if at all, they actually and precisely cause a “disease”.
The only thing I know for sure is that it’s bloody complicated – and that’s even before one considers the role of exosomes (or are they viruses) in the body. Their very existence was unknown until about 30 years ago and immunologists/bio molecular scientists haven’t got a clue as to their actual make up and purpose. lol.
Clare, the $cientists, SAGE, Big Pharma and the Government LIED. You know it and we know it. They LIED from the start and they are still LYING.
They will never stop LYING. Even when proven wrong, they will still carry on LYING.
Many of today’s career research scientists have been educated in comparatively recent times and as such have been brought up on a diet of multi-choice questions where the correct answer can only be select from pre-determined values. It is not permitted to ask questions that don’t fit the current orthodoxy and of course their funding is likely provided by an organisation that wants confirmation not new ideas.
Most of the opposition to these new “science facts” comes from retired scientists who no longer need to please their financial masters by coming up with the “right” result.
Surely getting things wrong IS the scientific process, until something is so right that you cannot make it wrong, however hard you try
Science is a Process. It is not a proxy for truth. ——–Most of it is wrong. That is just how science progresses. That is until the era of “Official Science” that has been hijacked for political purposes.
The hypothesis that everyone was susceptible to sarscov2, and equally threatened by it, was subjected to a classic ‘Popperian’ rebuttal experiment in Spring-20. The Diamond Princess cruise ship was anchored off Japan in quarantine with 3,700 passengers and crew on board, and clear-cut cases of covid19 among them. The virus was on board and there was little chance of evading it. Several weeks later, 7 of the passengers and none of the crew had died. All 7 were elderly and infirm. Of the 3,700 on board, 700 got symptomatically ill.
If you’re a purported scientist, such as Whitty or Vallance, and data such as this is presented to you, you must accept that your hypothesis has been refuted. You cannot go on as though the data did not exist.
Yet they did.
In April-20, while the Diamond Princess quarantine was ongoing, Gates made the statement ‘It ends when everyone has been vaccinated’.
Gates can only think of viruses as bits of his crappy software that are sorted out by patches, which have to be updated as more and more software errors are identified.
In what passes for his brain the poisonous jabs are these patches. And it’s only an amazing coincidence that he’s invested heavily in the manufacturers of these ‘safe and effective’ products
There is an obvious answer to this – they are bought by money, but the lies become obvious when scientists provide the “evidence” to support their lies. The Randomised Control Trials published before the Covid vaccines were approved told the truth, but they were ignored by the government regulators who take their instructions from Big Pharma. The politicians are too stupid to understand any of this.