I love how “Follow the Science!” has become such a catch phrase lately. I’m mainly hearing this one in the context of Covid-19 mandates. Like many government-generated catch phrases, it’s an inversion – where the meaning is the opposite of the actual words. [Other examples: “Affordable Health Care for America Act” and “Anti-Fascism”]
Following this logic, “Follow the Science!” might actually mean “Don’t Follow the Science!” and it could serve as a perfect mantra for those who wish to believe exactly what they’re being told about all the Covid-19 shenanigans – the masks and lock-downs and vaccines and whatnot. But some people are (rightly) asking what “Following the Science” should really mean.

Covid Camps
As far as I can tell, people seem to belong to one the following Camps of Belief regarding the Covid-19 thing. There must be some sub-camps too, but these seem to be the main ones:
Camp Cult
Camp Colors: Green and Gold
Motto: “We believe what we’re told, and those who don’t believe are dangerous.”
Ethos: Unquestioning acceptance of the mainstream narrative. Covid-19 is a serious public health crisis. Governments are acting to protect people as best they can by following the science and reacting proportionately.
Science Think: Reliance on “accepted science” which is slang for propagandized science. Due diligence (researching for oneself) is restricted by an oddly shaped container. For example, published CDC information that supports the official narrative such as “Covid-19 cases are spiking” is lauded, while published CDC information that undermines the official narrative such as “number of influenza cases is the lowest it’s been in 130 years” is largely ignored.
Membership: Possibly close to 80% of the U.S. population. Gulp. I’m basing this on the assumption that it corresponds with recent polls on mask compliance, and by my own limited head-counting observations out in the world, i.e., it looks to me like at least 80% of people are wearing masks when they’re out and about (although I’d say this number is higher in urban areas).
Camp Bureaucracy
Camp Colors: Blue and White
Camp Motto: “We love our government but we wish they weren’t filled with such bumbling fools.”
Ethos: Some suspicion of the mainstream narrative. Covid-19 is a serious public health crisis, but government lock-down and masking initiatives are an overreaction (group-think based panic) to incorrect and incomplete scientific data regarding mortality and transmission. Now that better scientific information is available to show that the sky is not falling, governments will try to slither out of panic mode gradually, saving face as best they can. Anyway…It’s all moot now because – thank goodness! – we have vaccines.
Science Think: Healthy skepticism of “accepted science” because it conflicts with other, discoverable science. Due diligence (researching for oneself) reveals gaps and conflicts with the mainstream narrative. Politicians and governments are interfering with good science and misinterpreting it, mainly out of ignorance and/or incompetence rather than some scheme to deceive the public. If the government could get out of its own way and let good science take the lead, we’d be out of the woods in no time.
Membership: Possibly close to 15% of the U.S. population. I’m basing this on the assumption that the above Camp is 80% and the final Camp (below) must be pretty darn small.
Camp Conspiracy
Camp Colors: N/A
Camp Motto: “This is a scam, a plan-demic that is a part of a grand and terrible scheme to reset society.”
Ethos: The mainstream narrative is a coordinated lie and the story of the “Covid-19 crisis” is fiction. The goal is to create a climate of fear and ultimately, acquiescence and dependency upon a totalitarian, fascist State. Face masks and forced isolation are not about health; they are symbols of a muzzled, obedient, and self-policing population. Covid-19 vaccines are not assisting health, they are targeting it.
Science Think: As usual, the science is hidden in plain sight. Some of it, once properly propagandized, becomes the “accepted science” for the unquestioning masses. The rest is discoverable with due diligence (researching for oneself), and is in such conflict with the “accepted science” that it calls into question the entire mainstream narrative. There are good scientists and bad ones. The good ones seek and publish real discovery. The bad ones are paid to publish results that bolster predetermined conclusions. As such, it’s not possible to arrive at firm science-based beliefs without doing research that is deep, wide, and evaluated in broader contexts.
Membership: Probably less than 5% of the U.S. population. This percentage (and the percentages assumed above) excludes the ~1% of people (?) that must be actively involved in the scheme.
Rhetorical Questions
1 Which camp is the best fit for you?
2 Any guesses as to which camp I’m in?

Weird Science
To further work this out, let’s take a look at an example of how these different Covid Camps line up on a specific, current science topic. Let’s start with a straightforward narrative slug.
Mainstream Narrative:
“In Pfizer’s large clinical trial, the two doses of the vaccine were shown to be 95% effective at preventing COVID-19 cases.” See a mainstream source here.
The various Covid Camps uptake this information in different ways. In brief, it’s something like the following.
Camp Cult:
Simple logic; no research required.
“95% effectiveness is awesome! I can’t wait to get my vaccine!”
Camp Bureaucracy:
Skewed logic; mid-depth research to convince oneself.
“Further research indicates that 95% effectiveness is more than twice the effectiveness of the annual flu shot (!) – so this is really amazing news. The fact that Pfizer, Moderna, and others were able to develop these new vaccines in under a year when typical vaccine developments are on the order of 5-10 years is a testament to the excellence of modern science and how the will-to-action of governments and private industries can be extremely efficient. The focus should be on rolling this vaccine out as fast as possible to a large percentage of the human population so we can achieve herd immunity and get back to normal. Unfortunately, bureaucrats seem to be dropping the ball on this – They can’t get out of their own way long enough to get these vaccines out to the people that need it most!”
Camp Conspiracy:
Simple logic; lots of research required.
“If the annual flu shot typically carries a 40% efficacy rate, and takes at least 5 years to develop, it seems a little suspicious that the brand-new-technology (mRNA) vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna, and others are claiming 95% effectiveness and have been developed in less than a year. Where does this 95% number come from? And what is this new nRNA vaccine technology all about?
It takes some digging, but the origin for the 95% number is discoverable as of this writing. Basically, the efficacy claims are based on experimental Covid-19 vaccine trials, and they are astounding, to say the least.
Pfizer says it recorded 170 positive-test Covid-19 cases amongst the ~44,000 trial volunteers (0.4%), with this split: 162 positive cases in the placebo group (~22,000 volunteers) versus 8 positive cases in the vaccine group (~22,000 volunteers). The 95% efficacy claim comes from saying that the difference in cases between the trial groups (154 cases = 162 minus 8) means that the vaccine protected 154 people from infection. Thus 154 out of 162 = 95% effectiveness. Ta-Da! Moderna uses the same kind of “math” on their trail of ~30,000 volunteers.
Obviously, these 95% claims are none too convincing when you look at it like this. It would be more honest to say that the vaccine was believed to be effective in preventing Covid-19 cases for 95% of less than 0.5% of people in really small, short-term trials. Is this an example of science that’s worth following? It’s not a lie to claim 95% efficacy, per se, but it sure is deceiving if the source of this number isn’t conveyed. This demonstrates that full transparency and scrutiny of data is required for any informed decision making.
In terms of discovering what the new mRNA vaccine technology is all about, it’s worth taking a look at Moderna’s own creepy description on their website, which is here (at least until they decide to edit it). Moderna, whose strap line is ‘Messenger Therapeutics,’ describes their mRNA vaccines as ‘a technology platform that functions very much like an operating system on a computer‘ and boasts that they are ‘… leveraging the flexibility afforded by our platform and the fundamental role mRNA plays in protein synthesis to pursue mRNA medicines for a broad spectrum of diseases.’
Based on the above, it’s pretty clear that the mainstream narrative is seriously flawed – and worse than that, it’s likely a deception. The new mRNA vaccines likely took decades to develop and the goal is probably not to protect people against some novel virus, but rather to install new ‘software’ into people’s ‘operating systems.’
Our ‘operating systems’ are just fine as they are, so ummm … no thanks.”
Phil’s Two Cents
Like the title of the old 1960’s movie says, It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World!
But it doesn’t have to be. Regardless of what The Man says, we all still have our independence of thought, individual sovereignty, and an innate capacity to Love each other and ourselves.
One encouraging statistic is that nearly 60% of vaccine-eligible front-line healthcare workers are declining the experimental mRNA vaccines, even in the face of “incentives.” By the way: My favorite incentive (coercion tactic) so far has to be Houston Methodist hospital system’s $500 “Hope Bonus” that’s being offered to workers who accept the Covid-19 vaccine. That name really fits the bill of the inversion scheme mentioned up above, don’t you think?
Anyway… When it comes down to it, let’s be thankful that we can follow whatever science (or anything else) we choose, and that coercion is only taking the form of silly bribes so far. Let’s also be thankful that we can talk out loud and write about whatever we choose. Ain’t that a peach?
– “Phil”
Be First to Comment