This nations citizenry is intensely engaged either passively or actively in following the development of the global Wuhan virus pandemic a biological entity simultaneously affecting the entirety of lives and livelihoods like none ever experienced within the past several generations.
Unlike the multitude of societys governances (i.e. security healthcare politics the economy humanitarianism etc.) that directly or indirectly factor into the infrastructure brought to bear in the eradication of this disease it is the component known as the science that remains the last vestige thwarting subjection to the mainstreams typical bureaucracy so our first and natural instincts would lead us to believe.
Despite everyones wishful thinking toward and our fixation on eradicating the Wuhan virus reality has once again raised its head albeit unfortunately replete with science that appears at times to be laden with bureaucratic overtones misguided contradictory and intermittently totally incorrect. Collectively this obfuscation of both critical data and prudent dissemination of information is what can taint the integrity of science resulting in its being discredited a stigma it can neither afford to have nor tolerate.
Evidence of this adulteration of fact-based scientific reporting can be found in a plethora of information technology sources inclusive of periodicals tabloids the news media briefings and websites to name just a few. The adulteration is indisputable as exemplified by just a few of the multitude of examples in existence: (1) approved one-time use of N95 masks that were initially touted as the only proper personal protective equipment have now acceptably been replaced by make-shift facial protection for use in the general public; (2) the improper widespread use even in news briefings and press conferences alike of the phrase …..to kill the virus" when in fact viruses by their very nature are not considered live biological organisms and therefore cant be killed; (3) the 6-ft distancing rule established by the CDC but with no analytical explanation as to whether this distance is appropriate for this particular virus; and (4) the use of supposedly sophisticated epidemiological models that on any given day generate one set of outcome numbers only to have these same numbers amended the very next day if not sooner apparently due to misguided input data. Whats worse is the reality that these incongruities rather than the proper heralding of solid scientific fact and data reason and guidance inevitably lead to iterative fostering and recirculation of misinformation to and by all of the lay public.
The public at large must rely heavily on the science for the garnering of a proper and honest understanding of all facets related to this pandemic especially given the viruss all-encompassing magnitude and the potential consequences of its adverse effects. The integrity of the science to the vast majority of medical professionals healthcare workers research scientists and the like is sacrosanct and must always remain eternal. A commitment to trust goes a long way in maintaining a sense of security for those ill-at-ease who are seeking mental comfort and prompt resolution to a hardship. Anything less and the trust between science-based professionals and the lay public quickly begins to falter.
Unfortunately though the publics trust is too often misplaced within a multitude of venues. The epitome of this resides with todays society having resorted to placing its faith in experts rather than in a concentrated consortium of those embodying similar expertise. Experts although very well deeply and broadly versed in one particular area of focus or endeavor dont necessarily have the ability to act wisely or with wisdom when assuming command in an advisory capacity. Too often experts in the science sector serve with a maverick-like approach and view a subject matter neither objectively nor in the publics best interest. Several of the key personnel leads on the federal Wuhan virus 22-member task force panel have exhibited this quite a few times both pre- and post-official declaration of the pandemic in which prognostications and opinions rather than empirical data and factual information were made. This was especially true relative to the nature of this virus and its potential virulency and threat toward the health and well-being of the public. To a substantial extent the public senses that the experts are putting forth the appearance that they are proactive and know what theyre doing yet they are simultaneously doing behind the scenes that which they alone feel is necessary for the citizenry with limited input from those with relevant unbiased expertise knowledge. Alternatively the amalgamation of a union of science-based professionals having similar expertise inherently operates with more of a checks-and-balances approach wherein the collective can ultimately better put forth again in an advisory role unbiased recommendations.
Those professionals appropriately bearing expertise themselves sentinels for upholding the puritanical nature of the science are expected to strive to champion the truth as well as to push the forefront of discovery and advancement of and for mankind ultimately all in the name of progress rather than in the name of prejudice politics the bureaucracy corruption graft and ideologies. Conversely it should not be the science intrinsically that makes public policy but rather its own contributory findings are the entity that should best be applied for guidance fortitude and rationale.
Untainted science in addition to its vital messaging demand moral and ethical imperativeness and must remain forever so!
Thomas M. Pavlina M.S. has 30 years of experience and expertise knowledge in the discipline of Nutritional Biochemistry & Metabolism.
Kristy A. Grabowski Ph.D. has 20 years of experience and expertise knowledge in the discipline of Immunology & Mucosal Immunity.
