You Can’t Trust the Experts: COVID-19, Part II

Why conspiracy theories on coronavirus have spread so quickly - Vox

Statistics and data are important, but so are stories:

‘Everyone’ was saying these vaccines were safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women. But how could they? There were literally zero studies. This is when I realized we were being lied to.

The problem was everywhere. Almost every paper I read had at least one obvious and serious problem with it, often of a type that you didn’t need any actual expertise to notice. I started to wonder how these papers were getting through peer review and getting published. … [M]y confidence in publicly funded science is completely destroyed … Our society is completely in the grip of people who have effectively evolved under selection pressure to strongly resemble scientists without actually being scientists.

[L]egislation which institutes lockdowns with no exit strategy … is not drafted with the view that the emergency will (can) end. The people drafting this legislation are not stupid. If they have not written an exit strategy into the legislation … they do not intend to implement one (at least not unless it is politically expedient). … The young, the poor, and people with disabilities would be among the cohorts who would bear the brunt of the damage.

40 years of NIOSH and OSHA data said their containment strategy was a joke.. and every hazmat expert who spoke up got de-platformed. That convinced me the government was not serious, and it was all theater. … I knew from history that both cloth masks and 6 feet “social distancing” were both failed strategies from the pandemic of 1917-1919, which Facui et al just recycled. That’s not serious science.

How could anyone be over due for a vaccine that was still in clinical trials and was only available under an emergency use authorization

[T]he media was flooded with stories of apparently healthy 40 year olds who died from covid. No comorbidities or risk factors, just died. I started to recognize it for fear porn and even suspected some of these ‘stories’ were fabricated.

[M]any children killed themselves across the US and the media would not cover it…. [T]he game plan was to day by day, using the Task Force daily briefings, make Trump look incapable and that all he was doing was a failure…to report infections by the thousands daily, and to make America unmanageable and ungovernable so that by the time the election came, people will be fed up and hurt and crushed by the lockdowns etc. and they actually pulled that off.

None of this involves “conspiracy theories,” just recognition that we are ruled by people whose ambition exceeds their ability to lead—because they are groupthinkish, or incompetent, or dishonest, or (in some cases) malicious, or cowardly—or all of the above. If you work at a large organization of pretty much any kind—”public” or “private,” “for-profit” or “not-for-profit,” etc.—you probably know the type(s). Heck, you (and I) have probably been the type at some point or other.

The only reasonable course of action is to adopt a stance of alienation from the prevailing Narrative—which is certainly not always wrong, but which never deserves the benefit of the doubt. Alienation—not just from journalists, but from politicians (both Democrats and Republicans), bureaucrats, “scientists,” professors, CEO’s, and pretty much any other “expert.” Not just about COVID, but about faith, health, family, and pretty much any other aspect of the good life.

But alienation is not enough. You cannot turn your back on the prevailing Narrative without something—or Someone—else to turn to. Or else you’ll go crazy. (Cynicism and despair are arguably even worse than blind trust. Tolkien: “The greater part of the truth is always hidden, in regions out of the reach of cynicism.”)

(Part I here.)


You Can’t Trust the Experts: COVID-19, Part I

“The most vaccine-hesitant group of all? PhDs”

Just in case you weren’t already aware: You can’t trust the experts when it comes to COVID.

Here‘s a helpful rundown (apologies for the crassness and vulgarity). And Locklin doesn’t even mention that “Pfizer crossed its published benchmark before Election Day, but didn’t want to have to announce its results, so it shut down its lab work on [its COVID-19 vaccine].” Nor does he fully dive into the media’s role in everything (nor the geopolitical angle).

“[S]ubmission works in stages. If you submit to this small thing, what next will you submit to?” Don’t submit to faceless institutions which have not earned your trust. Submit to God and in “secular” matters think for yourself.

Related. Related.

You Can’t Trust the Experts: Were Our Ancestors Vegetarians?

Proposed evolution of the human trophic level during the Pleistocene

Biologist Rob Dunn argues in Scientific American (the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States!) that our ancestors were (mostly) vegetarian. Dunn says that “[o]ur guts are remarkably similar to those of chimpanzees and orangutans … which are, in turn, not so very different from those of most monkeys” and since most monkeys are mostly herbivorous, our ancestors must have been mostly herbivorous, too. He then adds, “If you want a justification for eating a meaty ‘paleodiet’ … the search should be for evidence that some aspect of our bodies evolved in such a way as to be better able to deal with extra meat…. It could be there, as of yet undetected.”

Such evidence, as it so happens, is undetected, but only by Rob Dunn. As a recent article points out, our high stomach acidity, low insulin sensitivity, long small intestines, small colons, and adaptations to spear-throwing, endurance running, and lengthy fasting—among other things—are adaptations to carnivory. Not only were our ancestors not vegetarians, they were hypercarnivores for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, they ate so much fatty meat that they hunted many animals to extinction.

You may ask how all this biological evidence was “undetected” by a professional biologist. The simplest answer is: You can’t trust the experts.

You Can’t Trust the Experts: “Cut Medicine in Half”

[O]ur main problem in health policy is a huge overemphasis on medicine. The U.S. spends one sixth of national income on medicine, more than on all manufacturing. But … we see at best only weak aggregate relations between health and medicine…. Cutting half of medical spending would seem to cost little in health, and yet would free up vast resources for other health and utility gains. To their shame, health experts have not said this loudly and clearly enough. … [M]edicine has played at best a minor role in our increased lifespans over the centuries.… [W]e could cut U.S. medical spending in half without substantial net health costs.… This would give us the equivalent of an 8% pay raise.

Robin Hanson, “Cut Medicine in Half”

Universal health and universal health care have hardly anything to do with each other. Eat, sleep, and exercise accordingly.

You Can’t Trust the Experts: Brace Yourselves, Braces Are Coming

No dentist necessary

The New York Times:

On a Friday in August, I met with an anthropologist named Janet Monge in a ground-floor classroom at the Penn Museum in Philadelphia. … Since the early 1990s, she has been the keeper of one of the world’s largest and most geographically diverse collections of ancient skulls, housed at the University of Pennsylvania. … In a plastic container, Monge had placed skulls from the Middle East, West Africa, Eastern Europe and beyond. When I asked her if she’d ever seen an ancient specimen with crooked teeth, she didn’t hesitate: “No, not one. Ever.” Most of the skulls in the Penn collection date from a 40,000-year period starting late in the Stone Age and ending around 300 years ago, yet “they all have an edge-to-edge bite,” “robust” jaws and “perfect” occlusion, Monge said.

But then, in specimens from people who lived two centuries ago or less, Monge noted a striking change: The edge-to-edge bite completely disappears, and malocclusion suddenly runs rampant. She pointed to a skull on a nearby shelf — that of a woman who lived in 19th-century North America. Unlike the ancient skulls, this postindustrial woman’s maxilla was crinkled and small; the teeth that remained sat crammed together. “I always told my students, ‘Something happened 200 years ago and nobody has an edge-to-edge bite anymore — and I have no freaking idea why,’” Monge said.

(Related. Related. Related—see especially Figures 53-57 in Chapter X.)

In this case, as in many others, “Progress” has created a problem instead of solving one. Preindustrial people without dentists, braces, toothpaste, etc. had better teeth and jaw development than we do.

What’s the root (pun intended) of the problem? There are probably a few factors at play—the two orthodontists rather unfairly smeared in the NYT article above hint at some of them. Cutlery may also be a factor. As with most health issues, however, diet is almost certainly the key. Especially for children, whose jaws and teeth are still developing. (And brains. And bones. And everything else. Raise your kids on fatty meat!)

(Did your orthodontist ever mention that people didn’t used to need braces? Would orthodontists make more or less money if that fact became widely known? You can’t always trust the experts!)

You Can’t Trust the Experts: The Food Pyramid

Rizzo and Whitman on the food pyramid (via Bryan Caplan):

Light describes some of the notable differences between the unpublished food pyramid and the final version. The number of recommended servings of fresh fruits and vegetables fell from 5–9 to 2–3, while the recommended servings of whole-grain breads and cereals rose from 3–4 to 6–11. … Light further notes that white-flour baked goods, which the experts had placed at the pyramid’s peak for items to be eaten sparingly, had been moved to the pyramid’s base…. In recent years, many have begun to reevaluate the conventional wisdom that emphasizes caloric restriction and reduced fat intake, instead arguing for restriction of carbohydrates and greater consumption of protein and fat.

More on the food pyramid. As that article notes, we’ve known low-carb can treat diabetes for a long time—in fact, since the 1700s. Science doesn’t always make progress, especially when it’s politicized, and nutrition has been deeply politicized.