A few years back we were on a trip to New Zealand, where I had been asked to give three lectures at a conference in Auckland. We had decided it was pointless for me to fly there alone and straight back, so we arranged a tour encompassing Dunedin, Queenstown, the west coast of South Island, a drive across to Christchurch (I got a speeding ticket then), a flight to Wellington and a drive to Napier before returning to Auckland.
While in Queenstown we arranged a trip to Milford Sound in a small plane. I loved it. My wife did not, not helped by our homestay owner asking jocularly as we set off for the airport whether we had made our wills. I had promised my wife a larger plane than the six-seater we had. The scenery as we crossed the mountains was amazing and as it turned out the pilot had been a barman in one of our local pubs in England. After we had landed, he said we had been lucky as the weather forecast the next day was for cloud, so he would not be flying. My wife asked why not. “Well,” he said, “you can never tell whether a cloud might have a hard centre.”
That’s a long anecdote to illustrate a principle. The principle is – if you don’t know, perhaps you should not take a chance. Clouds can hide mountaintops. But in medicine there are many ‘don’t knows’, and while it might be acceptable to judge the risk-benefit on an individual basis it may not be appropriate to apply a blanket approach for an entire population.
Of course, if you don’t know that there is a risk you might construe that as being that there is no risk. But if you don’t know, well, you don’t know. And what if someone raises the possibility of a risk? Would you still plough on regardless, or would you wait until you knew for certain?
There’s an Arab proverb: “He who knows not, and knows not he knows not, he is a fool — shun him; he who knows not, and knows he knows not, he is simple — teach him; he who knows, and knows not he knows, he is asleep — wake him; he who knows, and knows he knows, he is wise — follow him.” My father added another two: “He who knows not, and knows that he knows, is dangerous – avoid him. But he who knows, and knows that he knows not, he is wiser still – take heed, for he has true understanding”.
I would like to think I am one of those last.
I posted a response to an online essay as follows – it was in response to one of the growing number of analyses of Covid vaccine risks:
One thing bothers me, and always has – with this and all other disputed items [the issues of Covid and climate change have become interweaved]. If the so-called vaccine deniers who have done careful analyses of available data like this are wrong, why are these analyses not properly and scientifically debunked? All we get is bluster, very occasionally quoting improperly conducted trials. There is of course a good reason they are not debunked, and that is because they are correct. Am I wrong?
This concern is especially important right now as there are official mutterings about the worry of a coronavirus resurgence and the need for booster vaccinations. But there are many unknowns. What is the real risk of post-Covid vaccination myocarditis? What are the potential risks of DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines? Could the introduction of plasmids cause short or long-term changes within cells that have substantial and perhaps frightening consequences?
The answer is, we don’t know. Maybe, but maybe not. The research has not been done (or if it has the results have not been revealed). Given the potential risk, particularly the long-term risk of incorporating foreign DNA into cell nuclei, would it not be wise to suspend vaccination programmes until we do know?
Consider Maryanne Demasi’s interview with Phillip Buckhaults, a cancer genomics expert at the University of South Carolina. Initially fearing that a report by another expert, Kevin McKernan, on the risk of DNA contamination was “conspiracy” he decided to debunk the work, only to find out that his own investigation confirmed it. In a remarkably balanced and non-polemical set of answers he makes the point that there may be risks – but we don’t know whether there are, what they are and, if so, how big they are. He suggests:
It’s possible that long bits of DNA that encode spike are modifying the genomes of just a few cells that make up the myocardium and cause long term expression of spike… and then the immune system starts attacking those cells… and that’s what’s causing these heart attacks. Now, that is entirely a theoretical concern. But it’s not crazy and it’s reasonable to check.
Frankly, there’s an awful lot of concern. It needs to be allayed.
The above principle of ‘don’t know, don’t do’ also applies to climate change. There is undoubtedly climate change and there always has been. Is what we are seeing now due to human activity? I think some of it is, but it may pale into insignificance compared to the effects of sunspot activity, volcanic eruptions and other natural processes and I suspect that the contribution of fossil fuel use may be less important than deforestation and water diversion (see Brazilian rainforest and Himalayas for examples of the first, and the shrinking of the Aral Sea for the second).
Does an increase in CO2 actually matter? Probably not, as it will aid plant growth. Is the global warming trend as steep as is being made out? Probably not, as temperature measurements are distorted by changes in the local environment of sensors (for example, by becoming more urbanised, or in the most egregious case of the U.K.’s hottest day ever in 2020 possibly being caused, extremely short-term, by jet aircraft roaring past the sensor with their afterburners going).
Most of the ‘need for change’ is driven by modelling, so is no more than prophesy, not least if the models have garbage going in, for then garbage will come out. Many people have raised serious and credible concerns on this and pointed to the reality of observational data which contradicts the prophesies. Even in the here and now, contrary to the dire predictions, Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching has reversed, Antarctic warming and ice loss is occurring over the top of active underwater volcanos, and the biggest greenhouse gas problem likely came from the Tonga volcanic eruption which threw vast quantities of water vapour into the high atmosphere. I have yet to see any serious and credible counterargument explaining why the sceptics who state these facts are wrong. If there were such arguments, surely they would and should have been deployed. That they have not lends credence to the accuracy of the sceptics’ views and makes one wonder whether the whole climate crisis is just an artificial one that has somehow turned into a kind of cult.
If the major drivers of climate change are natural phenomena we are only fiddling with the fringe. And that’s before we examine the practical question: is Net Zero economically feasible? Is the overall cost of going electric higher than the cost of the status quo? Can we go all-electric with vehicles when there are insufficient charging points and the demand on the National Grid will be unmanageable? I fear our politicians and some of our scientists are people who know not and know not that they know not. Maybe some are beginning to grasp reality, but the rest are, as in the proverb, fools. Some are in the know not, but know that they know group, and are dangerous. If we don’t know, let’s not do until we do know, and meanwhile beware of false prophets.
I am not alone in thinking this. Earlier this week Dr. David Seedhouse posted a piece on the Daily Sceptic, which he concludes by saying:
We are constantly bombarded with unanalysed assumptions, often presented to us by people with obvious vested interests. Some years ago there was a variety of ways to challenge these assumptions. For example, decent journalists in serious publications would do this and these challenges would filter into the public consciousness. But this seems to happen less and less in the mainstream, where ‘experts’ are presented as authoritative voices on X or Y simply because they say they are, or have a prestigious title, and it is impossible to challenge them directly.
The failure to think deeply, the abandonment of reason, the rush to the preferred conclusion, the desire – even the need these days – to go along with the majority view without questioning it – these are symptoms of a cultural descent into myth, superstition and collective madness. The truth is what we want it to be and what our ‘experts’ say it is and that’s all you need to know.
I submit that this abject thoughtlessness – not ‘the climate crisis’ – is the real ‘test of our times’.
Hear, hear.
Dr. Andrew Bamji is a retired consultant rheumatologist.
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.
Oo I’d pay gold to see Germany live with 20,000 elephants running free.
Another example of misguided destructive western virtue signalling via BigCharity™ was when Oxfam destroyed a country’s local clothes manufacturing industry by flooding the economy with donated western clothes. At a stroke, thousands of women who normally would be making and mending clothes suddenly had to find alternative methods of paying their bills and feeding their children. Most fell into prostitution.
No coincidence then that many Oxfam employees were found guilty of heinous sexual crimes against women there.
As far as I remember, they were “found guilty” of having solicited the service of prostitures, leading to the usual ‘feminist’ hand-wringing about that. I mean, can you think of anything more inherently depraved than men having sex with … gasp … women?!?
This really calls for some parental/ adult advice. Here comes.
Dear excitable kids. It doesn’t matter into how many moral knots you’re tying your precious souls, here are two facts which have existed since the dawn of time and will continue to exist forever:
And your only chance of doing something against this is to look concentratedly in another direction and tell yourself that nothing can be happening while you’re not looking at it.
Class dismissed.
A fool rarely changes but think on this: Why were they prostitutes? I doubt you will change.
In German, prostitution is usually called das älteste Gewerbe der Welt (the oldest profession on earth). I suggest that, instead of insulting people who point this out, you spend some time thinking on this. Alternatively, counter arguments instead of rethoricial questions suggesting that such counter argument should be obvious to everyone, would be interesting.
There were sex crimes in the Oxfam story for the sole reaons that prostitution was formally illegal in the country where it took place. But that’s not what people in the UK think when they encounter the term sex crime. That would be something rather more violent. Further, that another bunch of puritans really believe they’ll sucessfully eliminate morally wrong sex among adults by outlawing it doesn’t meant they’ll end up having more success than the gadzillion bunches of puritans who already tried this and failed.
mmmmmmmmm So we will have a big problem if the Elephants start coming across the Channel looking for a better life. Do we have enough 4 star zoos?
How many people actually seriously bring an elephant’s head home with them on the plane? I’m struggling to see how this proposed law stops people travelling to hunt elephants in Botswana.
Ivory?
An elephant’s foot used to be “a collectable” for the strata of society which went in for that kind of thing.
How condescending to African nations!
Who would be better qualified to look after African wildlife than African nations?
Namibia and Botswana are wonderful places to visit and enjoy nature. South Africa used to be top on my list but the political situation makes it more and more difficult (for white people). And it is always sad to see areas devastated by elephant over-population which, in turn, is caused by human over-population. It is a very difficult topic but definitely one for the local governments to solve, not the past colonists.
Modified for another scenario:
“America used to be top on my list but the political situation makes it more and more difficult (for white people).”
Of course, we know who the real dumbos are here…the very same people who voted through the cruel and barbaric hunting act whose only effect has been to ensure that many more foxes are shot and wounded to die a lingering death underground because only two dogs can be used for follow up, useless in thick cover.
Blair’s Britain, a fully signed up paymaster of the good intentions paving company.
An excellent article, thank you for the smile and the reminder (if one was ever needed) in just how stupid and short sighted todays pseudo Bourgeois fascist/ elites are.
What did the West do to the Middle East and Africa? Successful huh. Who do these arrogant fools think they are? Hell, look at the mess they made of the West where men in dresses get more protection than actual, real, live females.
“Never mind hunting Elephants, we have Jews to hunt”!
There’s nothing like rarity to drive the price of something up. There’s nothing like high prices to encourage (particularly the unscrupulous) risk-taking to supply those prepared to pay at fat profit.
Prohibition on alcohol worked so well in 1920s USA, that its success had to be repeated with narcotic drugs to create an unregulated, untaxed, global £multi-billion business run by organised crime.
I do wonder whether our ‘great and good’ have been treated by a cerebral taxidermist and had their skull contents removed and replaced with sawdust – certainly they exhibit no signs of higher brain function.
And instead of trying to murder Sub Saharan Africans with our Healthocracy we should adopt their healthcare system, that is if we don’t want to have our lives cut short for the greater good of Genocide by homicidal maniacs.
https://worldyturnings.com/2022/12/20/is-africa-the-covid-smoking-gun-part-2/
I wish “Africa” and “Africans” (whatever those words can possibly mean) all the luck in the world but I think we’ve heard enough about that place to last us a while. We have more than enough problems of our own.
I know this isn’t the point of the article, but I do find human beings who want to shoot a magnificent creature like an elephant or lion for their own pleasure or to put a trophy on a wall, to be absolutely repulsive.
But I agree with the article: we should not be telling African nations how to manage their own wildlife, although (like whale conservation) it would be beneficial for both the African nations and the rest of the world, if international agreements could be reached to protect and preserve certain species which are most likely to be exploited and/or endangered.