Good point on the development of scientific method as being relatively recent (circa 1600) on the human knowledge management curve.

I support application of scientific method to resolve the COVID19 (flu) situation.

I think always there are some people who consider the conspiracy theory rather than the scientific evidences and reality. Among them some people be satisfied after a long period, im return, some others do not accept the reality at all. The only way of acceptance for them is disease, or in the bad case, the death.

I have nothing against theories that can be proven in a lab with repeatable experiments. However, in nuclear physics, dark matter, vacuum energy, dark energy, and so on are only sophisticated modeling. So the Scientific Method is limited in most of the current theories. No one is conducting controlled experiments with Covid-19, and like it or not simulations and hindsight are the only tools we are able to use. The Scientific Method is severely limited in medical research probably rightly. (even vaccinations)

Now a bit of history to illustrate doubting the medical community. The conspiracy that wasn't is aspirin and influenza. In 1920 hundreds of thousands of Americans believed that the German company Bayer had figured out a way to put influenza in aspirins to punish the world for losing the war. You can imagine how the wise medical and scientific experts scoffed at such an idea. But was there something to such a mad viewpoint? Here was the evidence the poor stupid unwashed had. (verified by personal journals during the pandemic). Monday, George came down with the Grippe. Tuesday he saw the Doctor and was given a prescription for aspirin. Wednesday, George was fine, Thursday he died of the flu. Today given the benefit of hindsight we would never prescribe aspirin for a fever at those doses, but aspirin was the miracle drug of WWI. First, how many people who had never been exposed to aspirin died of Reye Syndrome we will never know. As fever is one of the best defenses the body has against influenza, perhaps suppressing high temperatures was not a great idea with the Spanish Influenza. But one thing is sure, iron is a limiting factor for viral replication Article The role of iron in viral infections

and aspirin is known to cause bleeding in the very areas of the intestinal tract where the virus was replicating. Had Bayer and governments investigated the aspirin conspiracy it is conceivable that many children would have never died of Reye Syndrome . This brings us up to today there is a knee jerk reaction to questioning medical practices. Did you know that social media & Google search algorithms have blocked or down indexed any paper mentioning iron and Covid-19? They have enough bragged about their censorship. Luckily for me, Researchgate articles and presentations are mostly exempt. Still, from March 2020 to January very few people were able to read Presentation Why the Coronavirus Craves Iron

presently I wrote an open letter on what secondary infections can tell us about Covid 19 and all viruses (This article is on going: )

The outbreak of secondary fungus infections challenges the very heart of Covid 19 strategies!

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/outbreak-secondary-fungus-infections-challenges-very-heart-yukna/

and at the same time there is

All Pathological Viruses Alter Their Hosts to Increase Hyperglycemia

and proposed novel method to treat viral infections

which should be a preprint this week

here is the abstract from the prototype

Abstract: All pathological viruses need glucose to replicate quickly to overcome the immune system. The more energy available the faster the possible replication. Virally infected cells are a sort of micro-factories that are limited by ingredients and energy. Viruses alter the host environment to obtain more glucose. Viral mutating to increase the availability of elements needed like iron for ATP is already proven. Ten pathological virus examples will be presented. Implications for novel viral treatments based on the chemical & energy requirements of viruses will be discussed.

Obviously, even though the evidence is taken from a series of peer-reviewed articles, the implications could easily be incorrect.

If true though, I can not stress enough how important the glucose iron viral relationship is for the future of cheap practical medicine for the developed and industrialized world.

Sincerely hoping you keep an open mind

Professor Christopher G YUKNA

In the case of the Covid-19 pandemic, it makes sense to talk about the phase after the trials of vaccines were done. Then, millions of people around the world were vaccinated - that is not the lab experiment. A huge amount of gathered data provided a clear comparison of statistics with all or severe cases between vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations. For those specific vaccines, people have to decide do they trust science and math or not.

Victor Torvich I am sorry I did not compliment you on a great question. I do now! I would like to play the Devil's advocate here: "A huge amount of gathered data provided a clear comparison of statistics with all or severe cases between vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations."

Here is the problem with that statement, since no testing before vaccination to see the percentage of people vaccinated who already had Covid 19 there is a small but significant chance that almost 100% of those vaccinated already had either a full-blown attack or were of the symptomless variety.

Several experts and some simulations in early March predicted that everyone would be exposed to Covid 19 within 18 months. Those who received the vaccinations were generally older or in risk groups first, but those were the group that were susceptible to first wave infections. I grant you the likelihood of your statement being true, because of those new cases who were not vaccinated, but while not likely perhaps the very reason they did not get vaccinated is the reason that they did not get exposed to the first wave. Again this is not a controlled experiment and the delta version is not Covid 19 version one.

More importantly, all of this ignores how all viruses work, Covid19, Ebola, HIV, Dengue, Hepatitis C, Herpes Simplex, Yellow fever, even a nonrelated pathogen like Malaria alter their hosts' behavior, absorption, transfer, and homeostasis methods to increase serum iron and glucose levels, sometimes for long periods after the diseased state, perhaps even permanently. There are many methods to employ iron withholding approaches even nasal sprays of strong iron chelators like tetracycline or even lavender or rosemary oils;-) and possibly the same is possible with glucose. Certainly, we should at least discuss employing insulin when a newly admitted patient displays hyperglycemia. Testing if these protocols could work here would be a godsend if moderately effective for third world countries that have not even had one dose of a vaccine seems the prudent thing to do. And any attempt to rein in Coronaviruses et al via iron withholding will require a pause in worldwide iron fortification projects with iron-enriched staple foods. Quite frankly Americans would not be able to eat any of their favorite processed foodstuffs. (no wheat, rice, or maize products) which are fortified with iron by law starting with wheat products in 1939.

"No testing before vaccination" - that is not a universal statement. At least, in the USA in California - where I live, in many places there was a requirement to be tested (vaccinated or not) before traveling on an airplane, going to a medical facility, etc. Across the USA, in many universities students had to do testing every week (vaccinated or not).

"There is a small but significant chance that almost 100% of those vaccinated already had either a full-blown attack or were of the symptomless variety." - We do not know how significant a chance could it be. Secondly, if that was widespread, it should follow the normal distribution among all populations and, therefore, not impact the comparison data much.

Victor Torvich look at this state from the NYT on the United States

"Though more and more younger, unvaccinated adults are going to hospitals, the vast majority of people dying from Covid are older and unvaccinated. Low vaccination rates among older people in Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana and Nevada have coincided with surging rates of hospitalization and death. By contrast, unvaccinated seniors in Britain, Spain, and Canada are relatively rare."

This indicates four things for me

• Except for Florida these are fairly isolated states, where the first wave left relatively untouched
• Delta is version.20 or plus of the virus, and a different animal
• the data is incomplete
• there is a lack of homogeny and a great risk of comparing apples to oranges

A cautionary warning is in accepting at face value broad statements from interested parties, whether politicized governmental agencies even as reputed as NASA or the CDC, or vaccine manufacturers. Skepticism has been the bedrock of modern science and until recently revered.

Again Victor I agree your take is more likely, but contradictory indications like the European Canadian data is worrisome.

Christopher, There is no contradiction between the data in your quote. This data just said that there are fewer anti-vaxxers in Britain, Spain, and Canada than in Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, and Nevada.

It is impossible to account for every known unknown in every development in the world. We have to live with this fact. It makes sense to focus on what is known at every moment and see if that "known" supports or rejects a scientific viewpoint or not. For example, in this pandemia, after vaccines were developed (using science) and used by millions of people, the data shows fewer covid cases and less mortality among vaccinated than non-vaccinated ones. Still, the number of anti-vaxxers is vast.

By the way, people with an anti-science worldview use technology (cars, TV, internet, phones, refrigerators, etc.) created using science. Those people do not see it or do understand this, or they do not care.

My question is this - Could we speed up an acceptance of the scientific worldview? How could the research/scientific community contribute?

Victor Torvich look I live in France and about half of my friends are anti-vaccines, and of my colleagues in the UK, all have said that the vaccine solution was at best an average attempt and poorly organized at best. But you engage in a very dangerous game calling people that don't exactly follow your tribe's guidelines names. Whether it is climate deniers or anti-vaxxers this makes people into one issue objects. Do you propose you should surround yourself with PLU (people like us)? Personally, Victor the crux of my argument you have ignored or sidestepped besides the economic, emotional, and medical cost incurred, Vaccines are unlikely to be a long-term solution. If you have a vulnerable ecological niche, of over a billion elderly and metabolic syndrome immune challenged people other pathogens will come or are already in place. Protecting only works so much. To only employ the same methods used to counter the Black plague 600 years ago masks, quarantines, and variolation, I mean vaccination is not laudable.

But as to Florida Calf UK vaccinated at least once

Florida 62%

California 62%

UK 71%

These numbers are similar and for all of the morally superior Californians (sorry Victor) as expressed by the press their vaccination rate is identical to Florida;-)

Christopher,

"The vaccine solution was at best an average attempt and poorly organized at best." - Even with that, a probability to die from Covid-19 for non-vaccinated is higher than for vaccinated.

"A very dangerous game calling people that don't exactly follow your tribe's guidelines names" - I do not belong to any tribe. For example, most of my friends are for Trump, and I'm not.

"Vaccines are unlikely to be a long-term solution" - Is there any other proposal, which is, at least, that effective short-term or long-term?

"The morally superior Californians" - I do not assess the situation with the acceptance of a scientific worldview from a moral perspective.

BTW, there is nothing superior in the American population. According to a 2005 Gallup survey, three in four Americans believe in the paranormal.

I understand that people are not "one issue objects." There are a lot of people who work, for example, in medicine or technology, using methods and tools developed based on science. Yet, many of them do not believe in science when they do one tiny step out of their professional area and even in their profession.

All resistance to the scientific worldview is understandable. Just consider that the scientific method exists for only the last 0.8% of 44 thousand years of mankind's history. The question is, should we silently wait the next 40 thousand years for a big portion of the population to accept fully or partially the scientific worldview, or could something be done to speed it up?

There is a journal Public Understanding of Science (https://journals.sagepub.com/home/pus). This journal is a fully peer-reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public.

There are not many studies on this topic which is very interesting. I could only find this study: Preprint The Covid19Impact Survey: Assessing the Pulse of the COVID-1...

It all comes down to the authorities and their trustability in forming a society that is well-informed, however unfortunate this could be in the long run.

Every one of us plays multiple roles, like son, husband, father, worker, etc. The same goes for our worldviews - we could look at the world from psychology, art, religion, literature, science, and many other viewpoints. Those roles and those viewpoints coexist in us. This discussion is not about Universe from this or that viewpoint.

I want to clarify my original question. My question is about the practical use of consequences of scientific method applications.

Here are just two examples. First, lights in our homes are powered by electricity. Second, cars, phones, Internet. Anybody who uses electricity, cars, phones, the Internet - any such person is using something which was created and manufactured by technology based on the use of the scientific method. That does not prevent that person from believing in God or in art or whatever. I also think that religions or art communities do not prohibit their members from using electricity, cars, phones, the Internet.

People, in general, are eager to use the results of the scientific method (electricity, cars, phones, the Internet). Why do the same people not want to use other results of the scientific method (Covid-19 vaccine)? What is the root cause of that, and could the scientific/researchers community help fix this problem?

The size of population that India has, we should have had many times more casualties from Covid than the United States. Do you know what keeps Indians from suffering more harm ? Most use use herbal cures like giloy juice or turmeric and coriander. These arent scientifically proven, these are handed down over generations and thankfully we didnt have an age of 'enlightenment' like the west, so we didnt drop all our unscientific beliefs. Traditional medicines work and are effective and we arent arguing with each other why, we also arent running to patent them and make money off them most of the time. You have to look at the method that drives science and technology, it is corporates who fund research for their own profit, so it is often a utilitarian enterprise, rather than a philanthropic pursuit. Governments do some sometimes, that probably produces better results and the most obvious examples from the US are the development of nuclear tech, internet and the worldwideweb, satellites, etc spearheaded by NASA or DARPA, or even DARPA-E. These institutions have provided funds and enabled quantum leaps in knowledge and expertise to develop these technologies, and then let them out to private enterprise to make and sell. The right of first use, however, stayed with the US defence establishments so there was a utilitarian motive involved rather than a philanthropic motive. But do see that like Adam Smith's invisible hand' we hope there is a hand somewhere that brings these endeavours, explicitly done for private good, to work somehow for the common good and as far as I know, far noone has found that hand ! Schumpeter and Friedman said its the markets that do it, but do they, can they ?

Many countries undercount Covid-19 deaths. See, for example, information in https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/07/20/1018438334/indias-pandemic-death-toll-estimated-at-about-4-million-10-times-the-official-co. "In the United States, the official toll is 500,000 but the real number is closer to 700,000." USA population is 333 million. That gives 700/333000 = 0.21% of the population died in the USA from Covid-19 so far.

In India, "between 3.4 and 4.7 million more people died in that pandemic period than would have been predicted. That's up to 10 times higher than the Indian government's official death toll of 414,482." An average estimate would be that (3.4+4.7)/2 = 4.05 million people died in India from Covid-19. India's population is 1396 million. That gives 4.05/1396 = 0.29% of the population died in India from Covid-19 so far. That number is higher than the USA number.

People decide to use electricity, cars, phones, and the Internet leaning on their needs and capabilities. I may be wrong, but I highly doubt that people base such decisions on the amount of profit, which specific provider of electricity, cars, phones, and the Internet makes. I also doubt that people base such decisions on their perception of what motivates CEOs of those companies. I'm unaware of any studies in that regard but would be glad to know ones.

That said, the question remains this.

People, in general, are eager to use the results of the scientific method (electricity, cars, phones, the Internet). Why do the same people not want to use other results of the scientific method (Covid-19 vaccine)? What is the root cause of that, and could the scientific/researchers community help fix this problem?

We cant go by unofficial estimates. If Indias deaths were four million I would have seen that proportion of my neighbourhood die. And do hold on, you will see the wrath of the delta variant in the US it isnt over as yet. Lets be open to fresh explanations to understand its impact as it unfolds. The science you want to rely on I am saying is maligned, efficacy of vaccines isnt fantastic and now there is talk of booster doses. I am questioning blind reliance on science as it is derived from a profit motive. Unintended or perhaps undisclosed consequences could follow. Lets also wait for the world to know in the first place who created launched this virus.i must add that all that I mention is n

..is not to deride the use of vaccinations, just to say there are alternative methods available to protect ourselves and it might be wise to take both, vaccines and traditional unscientific natural cures to be secure.

Dear Rajnish,

I understand it this way. There are multiple reasons why people do not want to use something created by using the scientific method. Among reasons are

(a) concern that companies, which created this "something," have profit; (b) desire to wait until some facts, which are non-related to the efficiency of this "something", would be known ("Let's also wait for the world to know in the first place who created launched this virus");

(c.) application of particular moral requirements ("for common good") to everything (even to electricity, cars, phones, the Internet, vaccines).

Those are the reasons you mentioned, and I rephrased them. There could be other reasons. In my view, none of those reasons is bound to the scientific method.

Yes, it could be that people do not care about the efficiency of the tools they use. It may be that people care only about their personal or societal belief points.

And it may be that we together just uncovered something, which is not apparent. Then we should modify the question.

Why do people demand more moral requirements to be applied to the vaccine compare to electricity? Why do people more concerned about the profit of vaccine-producing companies compare to the profit of electricity-producing companies? Why do people want to wait more time until some facts, which are non-related to the efficiency of vaccines, would be known than for similar facts about electricity?

Dear Alireza Khoshkonesh, Christopher Gerard Yukna, Aadil Javed, and Rajnish Wadehra,

Thank you very much for your opinions and kind participation.

Regards

Victor Torvich

Why do the same people not want to use other results of the scientific method (Covid-19 vaccine)?

What is the scientific method got to do with the Covid vaccine?

Or contact me if you want to learn more about secondary infections etc.

Sincerely

CGY

PS The outbreak of secondary fungus infections: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/outbreak-secondary-fungus-infections-challenges-very-heart-yukna

There is a difference between being ignorant of science and being anti-science. Science, in the sense of seeking natural causes for phenomena, is much older than Newton, but his was the first comprehensive, mathematically expressed description of physical phenomena related to mass and motion. Generally speaking, anti-science attitudes may be found in people who don't know much about science; however, they are specifically likely to be found in people whose religious, political or other commitments might be threatened by science in one way or the other. For example, many people reject evolutionary theory because it threatens their view of the origin and meaning of human life. Others see science as a project of the elite, who use it as a means of ruling or controlling ordinary people. Still others may be threatened by the open-ended nature of science in which all answers are temporary and subject to revision (many pro-science people more or less deny this aspect of science, as they are looking to science as "fact" and "authority"). So the key to acceptance of science is not more scientific information, but in reducing people's needs for certainty and in reducing their resentment of inequality in society. Good luck with that!

Diane Sunar Excellent summary, and I have tried to convey to Victor Torvich that "all answers are temporary and subject to revision" seems contradictory to the aims of this thread: speeding up acceptance of the scientific worldview? In my opinion, the Scientific worldview seems perilously close to groupthink. Trusting authorities on global warming, vaccinating the under forty-year-olds with mRNA therapies, dark energy, the nickwords: autoimmune diseases, etc. have huge logical errors and some like AGW and the pro-Covid vaccine camps call everyone that dissents "deniers" or some other less flattering appellation.

Sincerely

Professor YUKNA

PS Dr Sunar you are correct that information overload is problematic, we do seem to need more diverse sources of information as well as the critical thinking skills to evaluate the plethora of ideas.

It always happens with the important terms in our dictionary :-) There is no consensus of what is the scientific method, scientific worldview, etc. I do not want this discussion to be overly linguistical.

My question in this discussion was not about the difference in positions within the research community on what science, scientific method, scientific worldview, and so on is. The question is about the general population.

It looks like the general population mostly does not think about science, scientific method, scientific worldview at all. People base their decisions on anything but. People often omit everything related to scientifically proven facts when looking at their options, risks, and chances. For example, many times, independent studies in different countries proved that there are fewer deaths from Covid-19 between vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. Those are falsifiable proofs, which are proved until falsified (as it should be with science). I believe, most such studies by WHO, CDC, just scientists are done according to the scientific method.

You would imagine that question of a chance to die would be on top of people's thinking. Yet, it is not the case. For example, I now know three people who are against the Covid-19 vaccine because [they think or convinced] companies producing vaccines are making a profit or too many profits.

There are two subquestions. This study (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-arent-new-to-the-anti-vaxx-movement/) points out that too many different factors impact people's decisions and all those factors are not related to people's knowledge about science. The first question is if there are too many reasons why people do not know and care about science, are ignorant of science, and have anti-scientific views? Is this picture too fragmented, and there is no root cause among those reasons at all? If so, then any attempts to change the situation are useless. Suppose the answer to this question is "No", and it is possible to impact people's views about science, and we, somehow, could make people more inclined to understand and use science and whatever is produced by science.

Then, the question is will it help people to sort out their options and chances better? Or is it just our internal brainy exercise, which is good for us but useless for the population?

Dear Karl J. Matthews, Christopher Gerard Yukna, and Diane Sunar,

Thank you very much for your opinions and kind participation.

Here is the latest update on the use of mRNA therapy - mRNA cancer therapy enters human trials after success in mice (https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2021/09/13-mrna-future-cancer.htm). I guess human trials are done with the use of the scientific method.

You might find this ancient book's English translation from 1861 interesting. 'Surya Siddhanta' translates literally to mean the principles of the sun, it sets out the calculations of movements of planets in our solar system.

It is more likely to polarize rather than unite views.

Thank you, Neil. Could you please elaborate on why do you think that "It is more likely to polarize rather than unite views"?

"Unvaccinated people make up the vast majority of adult Covid-19 hospitalizations. A study of 13 states over a period of six months showed that among adults, those who were fully vaccinated made up only 4% percent of hospitalizations." (https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/19/health/florida-man-inspires-covid-vaccinations/index.html)

I am neither an antivaxxer, nor pro-vaxxer. I don't like extremes. It really seems strange to get first, second, booster shots, no matter whether you have natural antibodies or not Sometimes it does seem strange, doesn't it?

It occurs to me that the citizens' readiness to get vaccinated indicates the extent people trust their governments. It has nothing to do with ignorance, or has it? How about those doctors, who are sceptical about COVID vaccines? Are they ignorant too?

I think prejudice plays a big role in human lives. The prejudice itself is a part of who we are. It is up to every adult individual to realize it and decide if we would do something about it and what to do. The best way is to get balanced information about important issues - from both or multiple sides - and validate it. You would be amazed to find out how few people do it.

Elites, governments, professional groups, including doctors in case of the vaccine issue, are all part of the population. As such, those groups are subjects to the same prejudice, unbalanced approach, normal (Gauss) distribution, and so forth.

The only way to end COVID 19 is to sponsor deep intellectual scientific research on the virus, strangely despite advance made in medical diagnosis and manage ,most information on COVID 19 are contradictory, myths and highly prejudice, this play a role in stimulation vast conspiracy theories we have about this pandemic.

We all want an end to COVID 19 then let things be done right

Dear Rajnish Wadehra, Lilia Kalytiuk, Panagiotis G. Krimpas, and Doherty Odueko Funmilayo, Thank you very much for your opinions and kind participation.

@Victor Torvich thanks

Surely the "scientific worldview" would be that there is more than one "scientific worldview" and science itself needs to investigate this?

Stephen David Edwards - Of course, even the same subject could be analyzed from the viewpoints of different branches of science, like physics viewpoint, chemistry viewpoint, etc. The distinction in discussion is between a scientific viewpoint and a non-scientific viewpoint.

We need more scientific knowledge on this past pandemics, more research work still need to be done on COVID 19