I'm not sure if you meant that sarcastically? The very point of the examples given above is that "the science" isn't a fixed beacon of shining truth. It is an idealized process overseen by flawed and biased humans with their own personal agendas. We often fall short of the ideal, and are led astray by those claiming to have the truth supporting their demands.

How do we know today is any different than those examples above?

Because lobbying and abrupt, agenda-driven changes of policy and numbers (e.g., what counts as a "case" or "infection", and what number over what time period is reported) are easy to detect and collate when everything is in the open today.

The practice of science, which is not an end unto itself, is possible to indulge in because we each have a chance at examining data and methods. When those are restricted or changed without reason, that is another data point. We no longer need to, nor do we, rely on lobbyists who write legislation and policy.

Why does anything have to be abrupt? Perhaps Sars was a test run to get everything in place re the data, policy, and propaganda required to make it work? How exactly do you personally verify the veracity of the data and methods used?

Why do you think things are so much different today than they were just a few decades ago when the science in regard to sugar was corrupted? The corruption was successful then, and things aren't that much different today. Do you honestly believe that in 50 years time we wont look back and see at least one thing that was purported to be scientifically proven true, subsequently falsified?

I didn't believe the anti-fat propaganda, but I had precious few tools to convince others. Now we have an embarrassment of useful information, and most people pay attention to shoddy analysis to support anti-science ad-hoc statutes, instead. But at least I can satisfy myself on the facts.

Nothing has changed at all, really.

> Nothing has changed at all, really.

That's exactly right. So we're equally vulnerable to corrupted science as all the people before us who fell victim to the examples listed above.

Pretty sure it was stated sarcastically. It's an exact example of what you said the problem is, so I'd be quite amused if it was meant literally.

The issue is in the structure of organized production (business/finance/economy). This device has a deep cost.. and will taint peoples knowledge, effort, goals. All for the sake of high throughput I guess. But we should spend a bit of time thinking of alternative ways..

Lol