Science Versus Scientism: How to Spot the Difference

See important update below!

Pro tip (literally): Scientists and experts disagree about stuff all the time. True consensus in science is reached very rarely and only after a lengthy period of study and replication. Even then, the consensus can unravel with a novel interpretation or in light of discovery. That’s why we don’t censor arguments and disagreements in science. Ever. Argument and disagreement are what make science work. In censoring information and corrupting knowledge, the corporate state is engaged in anti-scientific practice.

The corporate state is acting like a fundamentalist religious institution where speech contrary to doctrine is heresy and those who persist in it are punished and excommunicated. The heterodox are treated as heretics. Those who do not accept opinion handed down from on high are treated as infidels. They are marginalized and ridiculed. Instead of objectivity and reason, the corporate state resorts to authoritarianism and the politics of reputational destruction and character assassination. These attitudes and practices are the diametric opposite of science.

What the corporate state portrays as science, along with the anti-scientific attitude and practices described above, is what I call “scientism.” Scientism is ideology pitched as science. The rational person has every justification in doubting claims made by those hailing from this ideological standpoint in the same way the rational person has reason to doubt the preachments of religious clerics. Indeed, a rational person should be very suspicious of such behavior, as it strongly suggests the actor does not have the science to back up his claims. When authorities do not want you to see what they are doing or to hear challenges to their claims, that strongly indicates deception.

If the authorities want to understand vaccine hesitancy and skepticism, they should take a long hard look at their own statements and conduct.

Scientism is an ideology used to legitimize control over a population in the name of public health, a major component of the technocracy. Taken on its face, the construct “unvaccinated” is absurd, since everybody is unvaccinated in one way or another. I haven’t had the smallpox vaccine. Nor have I been vaccinated for rabies. And there are others I have not had. The term is not really about public health but is a novel category being used to create a new class of people who can be subjected to corporate state control.

I am happy to see more people speaking up about the emerging control system, but we could see this coming from a long way off and folks are a bit late to struggle. It should never have gotten this far.

* * *


The CDC is now admitting what I have been telling you for months. Natural immunity is far superior to vaccination. I have natural immunity! Yay!

According the case numbers, there have now been over 65 million people that have recovered from COVID-19 in the United States. This number is much larger in reality given that there are likely between 4-5 infections that are never recorded as cases. Some of these are reinfections. Nonetheless, it is likely that most people in the United States have had COVID-19. Many of them would never know it because they are asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms.

With the failure of mass vaccination in halting the spread of the new variant, even in those who are vaccinated, the CDC is finally acknowledging the strong protection provided from immunity after a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

That’s right, the CDC is finally admitting that natural immunity is superior to immunity produced by the vaccines.

In the report, researchers analyzed COVID-19 cases in California and New York from May 30 to November 20, comparing the risk of new SARS-CoV-2 infection among several groups. They found that with the emergence of the delta variant, natural immunity was more protective against infection than vaccination.

And not by a little. By a lot. Hold on to your hats, these are gale-force numbers:

Infection rates among those with natural immunity were 29-fold lower in California and almost 15-fold lower in New York compared to the vaccinated (6-fold lower and 4.5-fold lower respectively). Crucially, hospitalization tracked infection rates. In other words, those with natural immunity were less likely to be hospitalized from infection than those who were vaccinated.

Why? For precisely the reason I told you: natural immunity is more robust and durable than the vaccine. When a person is infected with a virus, the immune system is exposed to all parts of the virus (including the spike protein). This means that the immune response is faster and more comprehensive.

Moreover, the immune system is able to respond effectively to a greater range of variants (or mutants). When the virus changes its spike, the vaccines don’t work because they were narrowly engineered to respond just to the spike—and a particular structure of spike at that (what a stupid vaccine). Natural immunity is not neutralized by mutations in the spike. It knows the genome.

Why am I right about this? Because I understand the science and I am not owned by Big Pharma. I knew this all along. It’s a matter of public records over at Freedom and Reason.

But if I knew this all along, then the experts knew this all along. Clearly I don’t know more than they do. So if they knew this all along, then why didn’t they tell you about natural immunity? Because they want you to take the vaccines. Why do they want you to take the vaccine? Power and profit.

How can they demand vaccine passports if those who have better immunity from natural infection are sqfer to be around than the vaccinated?

Please spread the “news.” Now that the CDC admits it, you can hopefully share the information without being called “antivaxxers.” Nah, who am I kidding. They’ll call you that anyway. But let them. After all, you’re already a racist. What more can they say about you than that?

Published by

Andrew Austin

Andrew Austin is on the faculty of Democracy and Justice Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin—Green Bay. He has published numerous articles, essays, and reviews in books, encyclopedia, journals, and newspapers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.