Do you have the same opinion on particle physics? Scientists have spent the better part of 80 years on an obviously wrong standard model - has that caused you to doubt Maxwell's equations or how the circuits in your computer works?
More seriously, "lack of skepticism" is bunk when the "skeptics" don't provide equal or greater research and reasoning. People have started to think of themselves as nobel laureates because they can say "no, I don't think so", and have 0 data to back them up.
I only meant that, in this particular case of polio detection, the cause and origin of the case is fairly cut-and-dry (there are other articles that have been published about it that give additional information), and introducing skepticism of the manner I responded to initially is likely to do more harm than good. Disinformation often begins with a distortion of a grain of truth, and the effects of that public skepticism and, dare I say it, ignorance (ironically?) breeds the environment that causes the reemergence of, for example, polio, amongst a public that is just being "skeptical" of vaccines.
In regard to Polio vaccines, there is some head-scratching to be done if you go down that rabbit-hole. It’s all ancient history now, but the numbers of polio cases was dropping even before the vaccine roll-out. I don’t know enough about it to comment beyond that. But, I do know human nature: polio outbreaks were terrifying to parents, and there would be every reason not to be a bit skeptical when a solution to the problem was found… that is, it wasn’t a time for clear thinking in the midst of the panic. It’s precisely times like that when people are prone to overlook things.
For instance, imagine the chaos that could ensue if a disease that was overwhelmingly trivial and asymptomatic was advertised as possibly being 10 or 20 percent lethal? Heck, I bet folks would be so scared that they’d shut down entire countries, weld people into their apartments, gulp down horse de-wormer, mandate experimental drugs, etc. Of course, I exaggerate. I doubt something like that could happen in modern times. But, if it did, the skeptics back when it was going on and even after the panic had died down, would most likely be pilloried and accused of being unthinking idiots. Just saying.
Quite simply, not understanding something, or not liking the consequences of it, is not skepticism, it's ignorance. Skepticism requires having good reasons to reject good models/research/outcomes etc. In the Alzheimers case, the reason for skepticism, which many people in the field had, was difficulty reproducing results, and lack of positive outcomes from therapies using that working hypothesis.
Blind skepticism makes you beyond stupid, and eventually turns you into an idiot who watches Alex Jones and thinks your own son is a crisis actor
https://rumble.com/v13jt4t-science-pseudoscience-and-the-ger...
> especially now that we have shown mRNA vaccines work
Right, they dropped from 100% effective to 30% effective in the first weeks, then requiring boosters. They totally lied/oversold them. And everyone got "it" anyway. How does that mean "they work"?
Also they do not look at truly isolated samples of viruses: they look at concoctions of monkey kidney cells, bovine fetal serum and more with the supposed virus in there. When looking at a concoction like that, what certainty you have you see the virus and not another small biological particle (like exosomes, or dead cell debris)?
Last thing, it seems that with many of these EM photos of viruses, is that the control group was omitted. You also need to bring a concoction that does not have supposed virus in there and somehow show that does not contain the visual element that ARE seen in the sample with supposed virus. Virologists disagree and are okay with going ahead without control groups in these cases.
Because a virus looks nothing like cells that would make up any of those organs. When you examine enough samples and suddenly see some cells that don’t look like they belong that’s a pretty good indicator of a foreign body.