You’ve probably heard of the scientific method, but what exactly is it?
It is a method for establishing whether or not a scientific study is valid, and it comprises of several steps carried out by the researchers.
- Observation.
A researcher or team of researchers have noticed something intriguing or unusual. Or perhaps they want to see how something works. Then they must look at the current publications on the subject to see whether anyone else has observed anything similar. This step used to require a lot of reading and time spent in libraries. Now it’s done online, but it’s worth looking at older studies that aren’t scanned and assessable online. This step helps to determine whether the new idea or observation is noteworthy. - Hypothesis.
Based on early observations and literature review, scientists define what it is about and how to verify it. - Experiment.
At this step, scientists examine their hypotheses using known scientific techniques or develop new ones. It is the most critical phase because a single error can ruin the entire investigation. Unfortunately, scientists frequently miss the most important aspect of their experimental work: reproducibility and repeatability, due to the pressure to publish or produce results that are favorable to their sponsors. It means they don’t repeat the experiments at least several times to avoid random error. Furthermore, their findings should be easily replicated by other researchers. - Data collection and reporting.
The data collected in stage 3 is examined, and a conclusion is formed. Scientists debate their findings and, if applicable, compare them to past research on the subject. The general public and other scientists should be kept up to date on new discoveries, which is why researchers publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Scientific journal experts must review the data and either accept or reject it. They regularly suggest additional experiments to help clarify the findings.
Unfortunately, modern science, particularly about COVID-19, does not follow the scientific method. A prime example is the PCR test research, but so is the so-called isolation of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Notably the scientist Christian Drosten is not only the author of the two the studies (on SARS-CoV and the PCR test), but he is also regarded as the top COVID-19 expert. COVID-19 scientific publications are not properly peer-reviewed, and low-quality studies are accepted as science. Journalists who are unfamiliar with the subject frequently pick up on these findings and produce articles that have no connection to reality. I discussed the recent scientific failure already in a previous article.
The fact that science nowadays may be anything motivated me to launch the Genuine Science Journal project, which I shall detail for you shortly. It has the potential to address the problem of bad science by improving scientific reporting and making communication with the public simpler. I want people to understand that in order to prevent pseudoscience, scientists should follow the scientific method. They should expect to be questioned and be able to explain their work in layman’s terms.
Scientists who appear in the media, such as Fauci and Drosten, portray us as arrogant assholes, when the truth is that most of us are decent people just trying to make ends meet and figure out how things truly work or what they are made of.
Regular scientists are overworked and underpaid. We are never mentioned in the media.
The Genuine Science Journal would provide a platform for the decent scientists and promote proper science. To avoid depending on corporate funding, you should support genuine science, because without it, human development and humanity will simply vanish.
We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster.
*Kindly help me in continuing my work so that my blog does not become a paid-subscriber-only blog. Consider making a small donation. Subscribe for my substack newsletters.
~ Carl Sagan
Love, Lidiya
GenuineProspect 
What I miss with the Drosten RT-PCR test is validation.
He should have done something like:
Take 100 people with COVID and 100 people without COVID.
Take samples of all of them. Label them and test them in a random order.
Repeat this whole procedure a few times.
Then you collect the data and get for every person you’ve tested the next results:
Real test1 test 2 test3
Person1 neg neg pos neg
Person2 pos pos pos pos
From this you can calculate how accurate the test predicts the real situation. E.G. the test results have a match of 98% with the real situation, which sounds pretty accurate, but next we’ll have to calculate what the consequences of the 2% test results that are wrong will be.
This depends on the number of people in the tested population who are actually positive or negative. If the real percentage of positive cases are only 1% or less then a 2% error is totally unacceptable, since this results in a bigger chance of getting a positive result from error than from real infection.
This is actually what happened with the PCR test that’s used.
LikeLiked by 1 person