This is Not Science

This is Not Science

Consider this scare-mongering article in ITV News / Telegraph:

Next pandemic could be more lethal than Covid, says Oxford vaccine creator Dame Sarah Gilbert, ITV News, 6th of December 2021.

Next pandemic could be 'more lethal', warns scientist behind Oxford jab, Telegraph, 6th of December 2021.

It's the usual dribble, but bear with me while we take a closer look at exactly what this so-called scientist says. I have emphasised all of the speculation and vagueness in bold:

"This will not be the last time a virus threatens our lives and our livelihoods. The truth is, the next one could be worse. It could be more contagious, or more lethal, or both. ...”

It's then followed for a call for ever more research funding for her own group; which is this woman's constant agenda. She continued:

“But there are additional changes that may mean antibodies induced by the vaccines, or by infection with other variants, may be less effective at preventing infection with Omicron. Until we know more, we should be cautious, and take steps to slow down the spread of this new variant. ...”

Just look at that claim that starts off with "the truth is": "The truth is, the next one could be worse. It could be more contagious, or more lethal, or both. ...”. She begins with a statement of truth but quickly descends into could, or, etc. Complete dribble.

Pure speculation. No scientist says "2+2 could equal 4", or "I think the square root of 4 is 2", ... Science deals with facts and truths, not hot air and pie in the sky.

GMSEED Is Instead Interviewed

Let's say I was interviewed instead of the speculation scientist and said:

"This will not be the last time a virus threatens our lives and our livelihoods. The truth is, the next one could be less severe. It could be less contagious, or less lethal, or both. ... But there are additional changes that may mean antibodies induced by the vaccines, or by infection with other variants, may be more effective at preventing infection with Omicron. Until we know more, we should be cautious, and take steps to slow down the spread of this new variant. ...”

All I have done is apply the same vagueness but instead with an optimistic slant. Both blocks of text are equally valid because they both have equal doses of speculation. But mine would never be published. Why is that?