discoveryinstitute--2020-04-15--Physician’s Diary: Our Remarkable Healing Processes and the Coronavirus Infection

Editor ’ s note : Dr. Simmons is the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves ?
He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture .
Given the increasing sadness associated with the coronavirus pandemic , I was slow to write about our remarkable abilities to fight infections .
Yet , watching how international medical researchers are capitalizing on the normal human body ’ s defense mechanisms to heal and protect us , I was reminded that there is much to marvel at here .
These physiological wonders are beyond simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just trial and error and Darwinian natural selection .
There is evidence of design here .
Nothing Random About It Normally , billions of white cells , including complex B and T lymphocytes , neutrophils , macrophages , dendritic cells , and plasma cells , stand guard throughout the body .
They are like sentinels with a whole host of weapons in hand .
When confronted by a foreign intruder , they quickly determine if this new protein , DNA or RNA particle , bacteria , fungus , virus , or a changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or foe .
If they deem it worrisome , they immediately punch holes in it with tiny grenades called “ complement ” and tear it apart , figuratively limb-by-limb .
Select pieces are sent back to the rear-lines ( lymph nodes ) for analysis .
No one knows quite how all this is accomplished , but nothing about it is random .
The analysis leads to manufacturing antibodies , often Y-shaped chemicals to capture all or part of the intruder in the wedge of the Y. Antibodies will often attach to invaders at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Think of a submicroscopic porcupine rolled into a ball .
If the virus foreigner were covered with triangular spikes , the antibodies might have “ catcher ’ s mitts ” with triangular-shaped pouches .
Electrical charges and specific chemical bonds also play a role .
After that , the foreigner is beaten to a pulp , damaged beyond recognition , taken to be eaten by select cells or destroyed by acid .
Newly manufactured , shorter-lived antibodies are the first on the scene .
Days to weeks later , smaller , often lifelong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also become part of your permanent immunity .
For example , if you were exposed to or caught the mumps , your antibodies would keep you immune to mumps forever .
The memory banks in the immune system remember all details .
Think of a library with tens of millions of books , with a means to retrieve precise information from a single sentence , maybe phrase , in any book , in any language , in a nanosecond .
It ’ s similar to our search engines , but much faster and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelming army of invaders , the sentinels will send for emergency reinforcements .
White cells , like the cavalry , rapidly arrive by the millions .
They travel through lymph channels , race from other organs , and squeeze in and out of blood vessels .
Pus is often the result of these battles .
This material is composed of millions of dead invaders and white cells , various bodily fluids , and all sorts of spent biological weapons , tools , and chemicals .
Recall teenage pimples or any abscess ; the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these pus pockets to the skin surface for drainage .
Analgesics help us with pain , like endorphins , and they treat fever .
It should be noted , however , that a fever is a natural defense and many invading organisms can not tolerate heat .
We used to treat patients with saunas , “ to sweat out a fever , ” and maybe that therapy should be revisited .
Millions of different foreign proteins enter our body every day through breaks in the skin , our gums and gut while eating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even through portals in the eyes from another person ’ s sneeze or cough .
Most intruders are benign .
Many others are non-life threatening irritants , as with allergies , which prompt a slightly different response .
The deadly invasions , of course , must be confronted immediately .
Immunization ( vaccination ) is the ultimate tool in fighting these kinds of infections .
Doctors maximize what the body normally does .
One must keep in mind that we have never seen this new coronavirus before .
If it were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a child ( as would be the case with tetanus , mumps , and hepatitis C ) , your body would quickly recognize the intruder , immediately call for antibodies , and destroy it .
Unfortunately , pandemics are not new .
With urban crowding , international travel , our encroachment on forests and jungles , increasing antibiotic resistance , poverty , lack of knowledge , the eating of certain wildlife , and bioterrorism , they have or likely will become more common .
The closest parallel to the corona scourge is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flu ( H1N1 ) .
In that case , an estimated 250,000 people died worldwide .
The swine flu primarily attacked young adults , the most healthy members of society .
These were the ones who should be able to mount the most vigorous response .
But , it was too vigorous sometimes .
The body ’ s cure became worse than the disease .
Think of a house-fire or a one-alarm fire , where the response is more appropriate to a twenty-alarm blaze and the entire neighborhood is mistakenly destroyed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , patients ’ lungs were destroyed by the response .
There are several ways to fight this pandemic besides social isolation , wearing masks , and proper hand-washing .
Certain medications interfere with the viral processes .
Many are being tested .
Some think hydroxychloroquine ( a malaria medicine ) shows promise .
It may prevent the virus from entering human cells .
Remdesivir ( an antiviral ) is another candidate .
It causes the RNA blueprint inside the virus to mutate and thereby become ineffective .
Vaccines prompt the body to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the trick is creating the right antibodies .
Sometimes , the created antibodies get in the way .
Hyperimmune globulin ( IGG , consisting of antibodies collected from donors ) was used during the polio epidemic in the 1950s ; it was given to patients with the worst cases , with paralysis , and many improved .
Scientists are drawing on that experience .
We are now testing and giving monoclonal antibodies and convalescent serum to the sickest .
Both have the antibodies ( IGG ) from previously infected patients .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by intelligent design — not accident — help keep us healthy .

Editor’s note: Dr. Simmons is the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves? He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
Given the increasing sadness associated with the coronavirus pandemic, I was slow to write about our remarkable abilities to fight infections. Yet, watching how international medical researchers are capitalizing on the normal human body’s defense mechanisms to heal and protect us, I was reminded that there is much to marvel at here. These physiological wonders are beyond simple accidents of nature. They are beyond just trial and error and Darwinian natural selection. There is evidence of design here.
Nothing Random About It
Normally, billions of white cells, including complex B and T lymphocytes, neutrophils, macrophages, dendritic cells, and plasma cells, stand guard throughout the body. They are like sentinels with a whole host of weapons in hand. When confronted by a foreign intruder, they quickly determine if this new protein, DNA or RNA particle, bacteria, fungus, virus, or a changed cell (cancer) is a friend or foe. If they deem it worrisome, they immediately punch holes in it with tiny grenades called “complement” and tear it apart, figuratively limb-by-limb. Select pieces are sent back to the rear-lines (lymph nodes) for analysis. No one knows quite how all this is accomplished, but nothing about it is random.
The analysis leads to manufacturing antibodies, often Y-shaped chemicals to capture all or part of the intruder in the wedge of the Y. Antibodies will often attach to invaders at specific locations along their outer shell. Think of a submicroscopic porcupine rolled into a ball. If the virus foreigner were covered with triangular spikes, the antibodies might have “catcher’s mitts” with triangular-shaped pouches. Electrical charges and specific chemical bonds also play a role. After that, the foreigner is beaten to a pulp, damaged beyond recognition, taken to be eaten by select cells or destroyed by acid.
The Body’s Memory Banks
Newly manufactured, shorter-lived antibodies are the first on the scene. Days to weeks later, smaller, often lifelong, antibodies begin arriving. They may also become part of your permanent immunity. For example, if you were exposed to or caught the mumps, your antibodies would keep you immune to mumps forever. The memory banks in the immune system remember all details. Think of a library with tens of millions of books, with a means to retrieve precise information from a single sentence, maybe phrase, in any book, in any language, in a nanosecond. It’s similar to our search engines, but much faster and more precise.
If there is an overwhelming army of invaders, the sentinels will send for emergency reinforcements. White cells, like the cavalry, rapidly arrive by the millions. They travel through lymph channels, race from other organs, and squeeze in and out of blood vessels. Pus is often the result of these battles. This material is composed of millions of dead invaders and white cells, various bodily fluids, and all sorts of spent biological weapons, tools, and chemicals. Recall teenage pimples or any abscess; the fight is concluded when the body moves these pus pockets to the skin surface for drainage. Analgesics help us with pain, like endorphins, and they treat fever. It should be noted, however, that a fever is a natural defense and many invading organisms cannot tolerate heat. We used to treat patients with saunas, “to sweat out a fever,” and maybe that therapy should be revisited.
Millions of different foreign proteins enter our body every day through breaks in the skin, our gums and gut while eating, our nose and lungs while inhaling, and even through portals in the eyes from another person’s sneeze or cough. Most intruders are benign. Many others are non-life threatening irritants, as with allergies, which prompt a slightly different response. The deadly invasions, of course, must be confronted immediately.
The Ultimate Tool
Immunization (vaccination) is the ultimate tool in fighting these kinds of infections. Doctors maximize what the body normally does. One must keep in mind that we have never seen this new coronavirus before. If it were the measles and you had been vaccinated as a child (as would be the case with tetanus, mumps, and hepatitis C), your body would quickly recognize the intruder, immediately call for antibodies, and destroy it.
Unfortunately, pandemics are not new. With urban crowding, international travel, our encroachment on forests and jungles, increasing antibiotic resistance, poverty, lack of knowledge, the eating of certain wildlife, and bioterrorism, they have or likely will become more common. The closest parallel to the corona scourge is the 2009 flu pandemic, aka swine flu (H1N1). In that case, an estimated 250,000 people died worldwide. The swine flu primarily attacked young adults, the most healthy members of society. These were the ones who should be able to mount the most vigorous response. But, it was too vigorous sometimes. The body’s cure became worse than the disease. Think of a house-fire or a one-alarm fire, where the response is more appropriate to a twenty-alarm blaze and the entire neighborhood is mistakenly destroyed in the fight against the flames. With H1N1, patients’ lungs were destroyed by the response.
Beyond Hand-Washing
There are several ways to fight this pandemic besides social isolation, wearing masks, and proper hand-washing. Certain medications interfere with the viral processes. Many are being tested. Some think hydroxychloroquine (a malaria medicine) shows promise. It may prevent the virus from entering human cells. Remdesivir (an antiviral) is another candidate. It causes the RNA blueprint inside the virus to mutate and thereby become ineffective.
Vaccines prompt the body to make antibodies by mimicking aspects of the virus, but the trick is creating the right antibodies. Sometimes, the created antibodies get in the way. Hyperimmune globulin (IGG, consisting of antibodies collected from donors) was used during the polio epidemic in the 1950s; it was given to patients with the worst cases, with paralysis, and many improved.
Scientists are drawing on that experience. We are now testing and giving monoclonal antibodies and convalescent serum to the sickest. Both have the antibodies (IGG) from previously infected patients. They mimic our antibodies, which, by intelligent design — not accident — help keep us healthy.
Photo credit: Airman 1st Class Alexis Christian, via Peterson Air Force Base.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-21--China, the Virus, and the Imperative to Build for Tomorrow

Marc Andreessen ’ s “ It ’ s Time To Build ” is a hopeful cri de coeur in this time of pandemic .
Americans , and American elite leadership specifically , need what strikes me as essentially a spiritual awakening , and Andreessen speaks to that in his own way by pointing out that an ugly aspect of American life that this virus has revealed is a sort of cultural impotence : Every Western institution was unprepared for the coronavirus pandemic , despite many prior warnings .
This monumental failure of institutional effectiveness will reverberate for the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not too early to ask why , and what we need to do about it .
Many of us would like to pin the cause on one political party or another , on one government or another .
But the harsh reality is that it all failed — no Western country , or state , or city was prepared — and despite hard work and often extraordinary sacrifice by many people within these institutions .
So the problem runs deeper than your favorite political opponent or your home nation .
Part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of imagination .
But the other part of the problem is what we didn ’ t *do* in advance , and what we ’ re failing to do now .
And that is a failure of action , and specifically our widespread inability to *build* .
We see this today with the things we urgently need but don ’ t have .
We don ’ t have enough coronavirus tests , or test materials — including , amazingly , cotton swabs and common reagents .
We don ’ t have enough ventilators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And we don ’ t have enough surgical masks , eye shields , and medical gowns — as I write this , New York City has put out a desperate call for rain ponchos to be used as medical gowns .
Rain ponchos !
In 2020 !
In America !
We also don ’ t have therapies or a vaccine — despite , again , years of advance warning about bat-borne coronaviruses .
Our scientists will hopefully invent therapies and a vaccine , but then we may not have the manufacturing factories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even then , we ’ ll see if we can deploy therapies or a vaccine fast enough to matter — it took scientists 5 years to get regulatory testing approval for the new Ebola vaccine after that scourge ’ s 2014 outbreak , at the cost of many lives .
In the U.S. , we don ’ t even have the ability to get federal bailout money to the people and businesses that need it .
We have shut down much of our country in response to a virus that we saw devastate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not seem to know what to do next .
This is partly because those who lived through similarly serious pandemics , like the Spanish Flu , are no longer with us .
But the greater problem is the one Andreessen addresses : because we have forgotten how to “ build , ” we are struggling to imagine how we will lead ourselves out of lockdown and back to normal life .
In retrospect , it will strike us as odd that we are not thinking strategically about how to build in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our states as laboratories of democracy , yet we are not seeing governors meaningfully step up to call for the return of critical manufacturing capacities in their states .
And we are not seeing governors call for the creation or replenishing of strategic stockpiles .
It should be an American imperative in the wake of this pandemic to decouple the American economy from the Chinese Communist Party as rapidly as possible , and to learn again how to provide for our essential needs .
This virus continues to underscore the inherent limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goods in a fragile time .
We ’ re seeing that America ’ s supply chains aren ’ t really America ’ s supply chains .
China ’ s totalitarian human rights abuses would themselves provide sufficient cause for America and other nations to decouple economically in retaliation against a regime that treats its own people as lower even than many of the worst kings of old treated their subjects .
The consequences of the spread of what the press initially termed the “ Chinese virus , ” the “ Chinese coronavirus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been devastating on a global scale .
We remain at risk of Great Depression-scale collapse , due as much to the initial lies and cover-up of the Chinese Communist Party as to any political incompetence of ours .
We once envisioned a modernized China , believing that trade would simultaneously liberalize its political regime and expand the territories of the free world .
Not only has that envisioned China not come into being , but the unfolding Chinese surveillance police state suggests that the American investment may have been a total loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have invested or forfeited trillions over five decades to produce a totalitarian superpower whose amoral capitalism and predatory mercantilism are perversely complemented by an explicit hostility to the human rights of not only its own people , but also of the world at large .
A sober assessment of America ’ s strategy is overdue , particularly if we hope to continue to lead internationally on matters of human rights .
Cheaper consumer goods simply can not be an acceptable price for the oppression of China ’ s persecuted minorities and political dissidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a moral agent in international affairs so long as it implicitly accepts that the value of the human person , and the degree to which the human person is owed protection , can ultimately be measured by their perceived material utility .
American independence was won in part thanks to our independence of spirit .
We were able to recognize that we were a resilient and a self-sufficient people , and that recognition contributed to our boldness in establishing ourselves as an American people .
Do we still have the traits we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll need them , along with a renewed vision and creative spirit in confronting the realities of a post-pandemic world order .
To the degree that America is responsible for the strength of the present Chinese regime , we owe it to those now paying the greatest price from this virus to think creatively about an America that can not only compete with China through resilience and self-sufficiency in the time to come , but ultimately an America that recognizes that we owe it to those who came before us to do better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our ears .

Center on Human Exceptionalism
The mission of Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism is to affirm and uphold the intrinsic nature of human dignity, liberty, and equality. In resistance to a growing movement against unique human personhood, we aim to revitalize a commitment to the traditional Western view of human rights and human responsibilities — summed up by the term “human exceptionalism.” Read more


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-20--Taiwan Learned Who Not to Trust

Taiwan Learned Who Not to Trust

Why has Taiwan done so well in combating COVID-19 — this pestilence that the press initially was calling the “ Chinese coronavirus ” or “ Wuhan virus ” ?
Simple : Taiwan ’ s leadership assumed everything it was hearing was a lie .
A PBS News Hour feature sheds light on the skeptic posture that America must adopt toward Beijing going forward : In short , Taiwan heard what the rest of the world was hearing : that something strange was happening in Wuhan .
But whereas Italy , the United States , and most of the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” was as much of the story as we needed to hear , Taiwan sent its own investigators to Wuhan : [ Taiwanese Dr. ] Steve Kuo : The SARS outbreak is a wakeup call for Taiwan .
And we learn a lot from the SARS outbreak .
[ PBS News Hour ’ s ] Nick Schifrin : Dr. Steve Kuo is the former head of Taiwan ’ s CDC , and led the SARS task force in 2003 , when the SARS epidemic made hundreds of Taiwanese sick and killed more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world.The very next year , authorities prepared for the next crisis .
That preparation allowed Taiwan ’ s CDC to detect the COVID-19 threat before the Chinese government announced it .
Steve Kuo : We pick up the signal that there is some strange outbreak in the Wuhan areas at the end of the last year from social media networks.We decided , and we did send two medical doctors to Wuhan from Taiwan CDC to get a better understanding of what happened there , OK ?
And then five days later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately to set up and activate the central command centers .
Nick Schifrin : That centralized command center launched border restrictions before almost anyone else , set local quarantine rules , and turned to technology.One phone app allows Taiwan residents to find stores with masks in stock .
Another app provides information on all of those who are COVID-19 positive , where they have been , and their case history .
And the government made sure it had enough medical equipment .
Steve Kuo : After the SARS outbreak , actually , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a stockpile for all medical supplies for 30 days for the hospitals .
Nick Schifrin : Another reason Taiwan acted so early , they didn ’ t trust either the Chinese government or the head of the World Health Organization , who , in January , praised China ’ s response , [ emphasis mine ] says Bill Stanton , the former top U.S. diplomat in Taipei .
William Stanton : He was just defending the Chinese position and echoing what they had to say .
And it made the Taiwanese even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing for that reason.China doesn ’ t allow Taiwan into the WHO , and that ’ s really stupid , because Taiwan is one of the main countries in the world that has expertise on international health issues .
Taiwan was conducting its own investigation in Wuhan at the same time that the World Health Organization was , it turns out , shredding its institutional credibility by assuring the rest of the world on January 14th that there was no reason to fear—let alone any reason to take precautions — due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daily Beast ’ s Christopher Dickey writes , the WHO ’ s “ reliance early in the pandemic on China ’ s information—and lies ” meant that it had allowed itself to become politically compromised and consequently meant that it had failed in its responsibly to warn and protect .
The WHO would take another eight weeks before declaring the virus a pandemic on March 11th .
The WHO spent February advising against travel bans .
The WHO spent March equivocating about the value of face masks .
And the WHO has spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position , critiquing its critics , and calling for unity in response to the division that its own failures have helped produce .
There is no greater immediate human rights concern than ensuring we collectively learn how to avoid the needless loss of life that is now taking place globally due to the failures of the WHO and the Chinese Communist Party .
Taiwan acted proactively , guided by realpolitik as much as past experience .
All that is to say , Taiwan acted like a nation state .
We should be glad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach to regimes and institutions that may be more hollow than we care to consider .


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-22--How to Restore Science’s Lost Luster

How to Restore Science’s Lost Luster

Scientists used to be among the most trusted individuals in society .
The white lab coat marked an individual who was highly trained , very intelligent , and ultimately credible .
Changes in the last century have cast severe doubt on that picture — and scientific organizations sometimes admit it themselves .
Some are very worried about loss of public trust in their “ expert ” opinions .
They should be worried .
In his book Science and Scientism , J.P. Moreland helps put scientists in their place , as did C.S .
Lewis before him .
Moreland loves science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say .
But he demonstrates that scientism is not credible , because it refutes itself .
Many important fields of inquiry , he writes , are off-limits to science , and to the extent scientists invade areas outside their domain , their opinions have no more credibility than anyone else ’ s .
These fields include history , theology , and philosophy .
Moreland shows that scientists can not explain in principle things like the origin of the universe , consciousness , and morality .
And yet invade they do .
Some scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of history , philosophy , and theology .
The major journals routinely give evolutionary scientists good press , while denying access to their critics .
The majority of scientists seem incapable of questioning the consensus on climate change or Darwinian evolution .
Many also seem to follow whatever cultural fashion is trendy , such as attempting to prove that sex and gender really are divisible .
To many laymen , the scientific establishment appears like many another pressure group , always begging for more public money for projects that seem frivolous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed away last month , used to catalog the most questionable science projects paid for with government funding in his infamous annual Wastebook .
Unfazed , scientists and their less critical fans carry on today with their annual “ March for Science , ” with hats out for public funding .
Stephen Meyer remarks that it is really a “ March for Scientism.
” If there is one thing that dims the luster of science for many in the public it is the near uniform alignment to one part of the political spectrum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream media and Hollywood .
Is that just a coincidence when independent minds flock together ?
Editors of science journals don ’ t get the issue .
They are aghast at the lack of public trust in science these days .
They think they deserve trust by the nature of their job .
It ’ s always the public ’ s fault , not theirs ; and so they advocate for better science education , and lobby for politicians who “ respect science.
” Some even try psychological techniques to nudge people toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Jay Richards discuss when it is proper to doubt a consensus ) .
The overconfidence of the science establishment comes largely from their habit of thinking that their “ method ” is more reliable than any other source of knowledge .
But is it ?
At the end of this article , look for a critical element that , when missing , collapses their credibility like a house of cards .
First , consider their “ method ” and its flaws .
The simplistic “ scientific method ” we were taught in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lewis noted , It follows logically that the methods of these particular sciences differ .
The historical sciences , for example , can not replicate how a fossil was buried .
Cosmologists can not repeat the origin of the universe or the formation of stars .
The assumptions , methods , and inferences in many sciences do not follow Francis Bacon ’ s recipe of observation , hypothesis , and testing .
Much of science today is done with models , which are simulations of reality , not reality itself .
Some can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not .
Science has ballooned into such a big tent by now that the luster of “ I ’ m a scientist ” has faded considerably ; what does evolutionary anthropology have to do with economics or quantum chromodynamics ?
Can it be argued that practitioners in each of these fields have learned to “ think scientifically ” to the same degree ?
C.S .
Lewis also said , Peer review is supposed to be one of those distinctive aspects of science that make it special , but like the “ scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a phantom .
For one thing , some of the most epic discoveries in the history of science , from Copernicus , Newton , Kepler , and on , were not peer reviewed , but were published in books .
( Notice , too , that Darwin ’ s books were not peer reviewed . )
The modern tradition of peer review began during and after World War II .
Even now , though , many scientists continue to publish books and blogs without peer review .
Another myth is that peer review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of scholarship , from history to theology , understands the value of review and seeks advice from peers before and after publication .
Peer review , furthermore , is not a formulaic procedure devoid of bias .
In some fields , for instance , all the scientists know each other .
In the ideal picture , review is supposed to be anonymous , but a scientist might detect that a reviewer is a rival intending to either steal a discovery or downplay a paper ’ s significance .
And peer reviewers are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ method used , or may not catch an error .
Reviewers may not have access to the software used , and may be unable to validate the programming .
As fallible humans , reviewers are also not immune from conflicts of interest .
These realities blunt the ideals of peer review , casting doubt on the often-heard claim that “ Science is self-checking.
” Who are the peers , and why are they considered trustworthy ?
What does the review say , and is it biased ?
Why should a review be incognito @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these and other reasons , outcries have been growing against peer review as it is actually practiced , and alternatives are being explored .
These include post-review and “ open science , ” where review is done openly on the Internet .
Reviewers ’ comments are signed , and their names are made public .
The success of preprints like Cornell ’ s arXiv for the physical sciences has prompted a counterpart for biologists named bioRxiv , where review is an ongoing process .
With preprints , scientists put their findings or hypotheses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can comment freely .
Such developments prove that “ peer review ” is not a method set in stone ; it evolves by artificial selection .
An opposite problem has surfaced in recent years : the rise of so-called “ predatory journals.
” These are journals that look like scientific journals but are accused of having lax peer-review standards .
They “ prey ” on scientists who can ’ t get their work published in the well-known journals , by publishing their work for a fee .
Last year Nature posted a stern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 35 scientists , complete with cartoon of a snickering wolf wearing a journal with a sheep on the cover .
Predatory journals have “ no definition , no defense ” after “ leading scholars and publishers from 10 countries spent 12 hours of discussion to try to define what they are , ” say Agnes Grudniewicz et al .
According to the 35 writers , these non-standard journals “ sow confusion , promote shoddy scholarship and waste resources.
” And yet when these criteria are examined in more detail , major journals themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a graphic in the article shows significant overlap between “ suspected predatory journals ” and “ legitimate journals.
” Is Nature the pot calling the kettle black ?
Does Nature not have self-interest ?
Does it not present “ false or misleading information ” on subjects like the origin of life and intelligent design ?
No honest person would justify the criteria put forth for predatory journals , but it seems oddly convenient for Nature — whose origin harks back to Darwin ’ s X Club which sought to make Darwin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a “ legitimate journal.
” Biographer Janet Browne points out some interesting facts about Nature ’ s founder , Norman Lockyer .
While perhaps Nature has cleaned up its act in the intervening 150 years , who are the editors of Nature to complain about predator-prey relationships ?
They should celebrate the situation in journals these days as evidence for evolution !
In Darwinian “ game theory , ” evolutionists have this all worked out .
There are “ cooperators ” and “ cheaters ” in any biological community ( Nature and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolutionary game theory ( here is an example ) as the Darwinian explanation for the origin of governments and religions , along with termite colonies ) .
Perhaps the “ legitimate journals ” are trying to evade the “ predatory journals , ” but the point of Darwinian game theory is not to justify moral indignation .
Indignation is just a behavior that the cooperators engage in by natural selection .
The goal of evolutionary game theory is power : the cooperators have power , and the cheaters are trying to gain power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperators become the new cheaters .
Nothing moral about it .
Nothing legitimate about it .
It ’ s just another amoral manifestation of survival of the fittest .
Nature ’ s appeal that “ Efforts to fight predatory publishing require collaboration and support ” take on a different color in that light .
The published letters responding to Grudniewicz et al .
are illuminating .
One letter by four authors complained that the definition of “ predatory journals ” failed to mention “ peer review quality.
” They used the occasion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in which reviewers must publicly sign their reviews .
But is that just another evolutionary strategy against “ cheaters ” ?
Three other authors almost saw the light in their letter , “ Predatory journals : evolution keeps them under the radar.
” These authors appear blind to the irony in this claim .
The “ cheaters ” adapt , they showcase with historical examples , but what about the cooperators ?
Don ’ t evolutionists believe in the “ evolutionary arms race ” theory ?
Surely the cooperators are adapting as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is nothing moral about this in Darwinian interplay .
It ’ s just how individuals reach equilibrium in social relationships , whether they are bacteria , honeybees , wildebeest , or journal publishers .
Here ’ s another example of the blindness that allows the journal “ cooperators ” to imagine themselves exempt from the evolutionary forces that drive the “ cheaters.
” This month in the AAAS open journal Science Advances , Jennifer Allen et al .
engage in “ Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information ecosystem ” if not an analogy to biological ecosystems under Darwinian selection ?
Their entire focus is on “ fake news ” in the media .
For the life of them , they can not turn the microscope on themselves to consider the possibility of fake science in the journals .
How are they to demonstrate that they themselves are not subject to amoral , selection-driven forces influencing their own theorizing ?
It ’ s always the public that needs better “ science education.
” It ’ s always the other journals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in their own worldview , there ’ s no “ ought ” about it .
On what basis can they preach , : This is absurd in the light of evolution .
Actually , sowing deceit and confusion sounds like a perfectly legitimate strategy for prey animals .
Insects do it with camouflage , don ’ t they ?
If humans are mere products of evolution , then these writers are pawns in the evolutionary game , just like every other organism in the ecosystem .
Perhaps one could even say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strategy of blind , unintelligent forces .
The most alarming evidence of fake science is the rise of spoofing .
Humans can be great spoofers ( see “ Is Nothing Sacred ?
Public Science 2.0 Revolutionizes Scientific Practices ” ) .
But artificial intelligence is getting so good at mimicking scientific publishing , it can churn out legitimate-looking scientific papers — graphics and all — with no empirical input .
Basically , spoofed papers are robotic packs of lies dressed up in snazzy garb .
What happens to trust in science when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to peer review when AI can mimic that , too ?
There was a scene in the original Westworld movie ( 1973 ) where the protagonist ( Richard Benjamin ) , trying to escape a robotic gunslinger ( Yul Brynner ) in the amusement park run amok , rushes to help a damsel in distress who got locked behind bars and was crying .
He pours water into her lips , only to watch in horror as her electronics short out .
She was a very realistic fake person !
When even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be trusted , what happens to scientific credibility ?
In EMBO Reports last month , Christos A. Ouzounis preached , “ Travelling to scientific meetings is a mission , not a vacation.
” Sure , traveling to scientific conferences is hard during a pandemic .
Sure , it involves sacrifice and troublesome accounting for the scientist , even if it looks like pleasurable time off to outsiders .
Sure , it is a necessary part of getting funding .
But “ science travel should again become a mission to promote research and scholarship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He uses the “ should ” word three times .
In “ The Future of PLOS Biology , ” the editors of that publication also use the “ should ” word three times .
The editors stress their commitment to “ Open Science , ” including open peer review , as an improvement on the traditional ways of publishing scientific findings .
And yet how “ open ” are these preachers when someone presents a paper about evidence supporting intelligent design ?
Earlier in this article , a “ critical element ” was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the credibility of science like a house of cards .
When present , it solves the problems discussed above .
When emphasized , it restores the luster of science .
Many scientists presume they have it without justification , but it is essential to the credibility of science .
It ’ s just one little word .
Tell us how that evolved , Darwinians .

Scientists used to be among the most trusted individuals in society. The white lab coat marked an individual who was highly trained, very intelligent, and ultimately credible. Changes in the last century have cast severe doubt on that picture — and scientific organizations sometimes admit it themselves. Some are very worried about loss of public trust in their “expert” opinions. They should be worried.
In his book Science and Scientism, J.P. Moreland helps put scientists in their place, as did C.S. Lewis before him. Moreland loves science. He trusts much of what scientists say. But he demonstrates that scientism is not credible, because it refutes itself. Many important fields of inquiry, he writes, are off-limits to science, and to the extent scientists invade areas outside their domain, their opinions have no more credibility than anyone else’s. These fields include history, theology, and philosophy. Moreland shows that scientists cannot explain in principle things like the origin of the universe, consciousness, and morality.
Invade They Do
And yet invade they do. Some scientists continue to attempt explaining the “evolution” of history, philosophy, and theology. The major journals routinely give evolutionary scientists good press, while denying access to their critics. The majority of scientists seem incapable of questioning the consensus on climate change or Darwinian evolution. Many also seem to follow whatever cultural fashion is trendy, such as attempting to prove that sex and gender really are divisible. To many laymen, the scientific establishment appears like many another pressure group, always begging for more public money for projects that seem frivolous. The late Representative Tom Coburn, who passed away last month, used to catalog the most questionable science projects paid for with government funding in his infamous annual Wastebook. Unfazed, scientists and their less critical fans carry on today with their annual “March for Science,” with hats out for public funding. Stephen Meyer remarks that it is really a “March for Scientism.”
If there is one thing that dims the luster of science for many in the public it is the near uniform alignment to one part of the political spectrum, which is occupied also by the mainstream media and Hollywood. Is that just a coincidence when independent minds flock together? Editors of science journals don’t get the issue. They are aghast at the lack of public trust in science these days. They think they deserve trust by the nature of their job. It’s always the public’s fault, not theirs; and so they advocate for better science education, and lobby for politicians who “respect science.” Some even try psychological techniques to nudge people toward their “consensus” views (listen to Jay Richards discuss when it is proper to doubt a consensus). The overconfidence of the science establishment comes largely from their habit of thinking that their “method” is more reliable than any other source of knowledge. But is it?
At the end of this article, look for a critical element that, when missing, collapses their credibility like a house of cards. First, consider their “method” and its flaws.
Old School Days
The simplistic “scientific method” we were taught in school is a phantom. C.S. Lewis noted,
Strictly speaking, there is, I confess, no such thing as “modern science.” There are only particular sciences, all in a stage of rapid change, and sometimes inconsistent with one another. Christian Reflections, 1945
It follows logically that the methods of these particular sciences differ. The historical sciences, for example, cannot replicate how a fossil was buried. Cosmologists cannot repeat the origin of the universe or the formation of stars. The assumptions, methods, and inferences in many sciences do not follow Francis Bacon’s recipe of observation, hypothesis, and testing. Much of science today is done with models, which are simulations of reality, not reality itself. Some can be tested and refined, but others cannot.
Science has ballooned into such a big tent by now that the luster of “I’m a scientist” has faded considerably; what does evolutionary anthropology have to do with economics or quantum chromodynamics? Can it be argued that practitioners in each of these fields have learned to “think scientifically” to the same degree? C.S. Lewis also said,
The physical sciences, then, depend on the validity of logic just as much as metaphysics or mathematics. If popular thought feels “science” to be different from all other kinds of knowledge because science is experimentally verifiable, popular thought is mistaken. Experimental verification is not a new kind of assurance coming in to supply the deficiencies of mere logic. We should therefore abandon the distinction between scientific and non-scientific thought. The proper distinction is between logical and non-logical thought. De Futilitate
Peer Review
Peer review is supposed to be one of those distinctive aspects of science that make it special, but like the “scientific method,” this idea too is a phantom. For one thing, some of the most epic discoveries in the history of science, from Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, and on, were not peer reviewed, but were published in books. (Notice, too, that Darwin’s books were not peer reviewed.) The modern tradition of peer review began during and after World War II. Even now, though, many scientists continue to publish books and blogs without peer review.
Another myth is that peer review is unique to science. Every field of scholarship, from history to theology, understands the value of review and seeks advice from peers before and after publication. Peer review, furthermore, is not a formulaic procedure devoid of bias. In some fields, for instance, all the scientists know each other. In the ideal picture, review is supposed to be anonymous, but a scientist might detect that a reviewer is a rival intending to either steal a discovery or downplay a paper’s significance. And peer reviewers are not perfect; they may not understand a method used, or may not catch an error. Reviewers may not have access to the software used, and may be unable to validate the programming. As fallible humans, reviewers are also not immune from conflicts of interest. These realities blunt the ideals of peer review, casting doubt on the often-heard claim that “Science is self-checking.” Who are the peers, and why are they considered trustworthy? What does the review say, and is it biased? Why should a review be incognito? Who reviews the reviewers?
For these and other reasons, outcries have been growing against peer review as it is actually practiced, and alternatives are being explored. These include post-review and “open science,” where review is done openly on the Internet. Reviewers’ comments are signed, and their names are made public. The success of preprints like Cornell’s arXiv for the physical sciences has prompted a counterpart for biologists named bioRxiv, where review is an ongoing process. With preprints, scientists put their findings or hypotheses out on Internet servers, where others can comment freely. Such developments prove that “peer review” is not a method set in stone; it evolves by artificial selection.
Predatory Journals
An opposite problem has surfaced in recent years: the rise of so-called “predatory journals.” These are journals that look like scientific journals but are accused of having lax peer-review standards. They “prey” on scientists who can’t get their work published in the well-known journals, by publishing their work for a fee. Last year Nature posted a stern attack on predatory journals, authored by 35 scientists, complete with cartoon of a snickering wolf wearing a journal with a sheep on the cover. Predatory journals have “no definition, no defense” after “leading scholars and publishers from 10 countries spent 12 hours of discussion to try to define what they are,” say Agnes Grudniewicz et al.
Predatory journals are a global threat. They accept articles for publication — along with authors’ fees — without performing promised quality checks for issues such as plagiarism or ethical approval. Naive readers are not the only victims. Many researchers have been duped into submitting to predatory journals, in which their work can be overlooked. One study that focused on 46,000 researchers based in Italy found that about 5% of them published in such outlets. [Emphasis added.]
According to the 35 writers, these non-standard journals “sow confusion, promote shoddy scholarship and waste resources.”
The consensus definition reached was: “Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.”
And yet when these criteria are examined in more detail, major journals themselves could be so accused. Indeed, a graphic in the article shows significant overlap between “suspected predatory journals” and “legitimate journals.” Is Nature the pot calling the kettle black? Does Nature not have self-interest? Does it not present “false or misleading information” on subjects like the origin of life and intelligent design? No honest person would justify the criteria put forth for predatory journals, but it seems oddly convenient for Nature — whose origin harks back to Darwin’s X Club which sought to make Darwin’s ideas look good — to justify itself as a “legitimate journal.” Biographer Janet Browne points out some interesting facts about Nature’s founder, Norman Lockyer.
To command the periodical market was a shrewd tactic in any cultural arena but one as yet little exploited in science, and while Lockyer was never a member of the X Club he displayed similarly strong, progressive, liberal opinions. Far more than any other science journal of the period, Nature was conceived, born, and raised to serve polemic purpose. In the first year of its existence, there were six or seven articles urging Darwin’s scheme, two of which were written by Darwin himself. Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place, 2002, p. 248
While perhaps Nature has cleaned up its act in the intervening 150 years, who are the editors of Nature to complain about predator-prey relationships? They should celebrate the situation in journals these days as evidence for evolution! In Darwinian “game theory,” evolutionists have this all worked out. There are “cooperators” and “cheaters” in any biological community (Nature and other Darwin-friendly journals frequently publish articles about evolutionary game theory (here is an example) as the Darwinian explanation for the origin of governments and religions, along with termite colonies). Perhaps the “legitimate journals” are trying to evade the “predatory journals,” but the point of Darwinian game theory is not to justify moral indignation. Indignation is just a behavior that the cooperators engage in by natural selection. The goal of evolutionary game theory is power: the cooperators have power, and the cheaters are trying to gain power. If they win, then the cooperators become the new cheaters. Nothing moral about it. Nothing legitimate about it. It’s just another amoral manifestation of survival of the fittest. Nature’s appeal that “Efforts to fight predatory publishing require collaboration and support” take on a different color in that light.
The published letters responding to Grudniewicz et al. are illuminating. One letter by four authors complained that the definition of “predatory journals” failed to mention “peer review quality.” They used the occasion to advocate for “open peer review,” in which reviewers must publicly sign their reviews. But is that just another evolutionary strategy against “cheaters”?
Three other authors almost saw the light in their letter, “Predatory journals: evolution keeps them under the radar.”
Agnes Grudniewicz and colleagues highlight the need to define what constitutes a predatory journal (Nature 576, 210–212; 2019). History shows, however, that such journals and their publishers rapidly adapt to filters that might discredit them.
These authors appear blind to the irony in this claim. The “cheaters” adapt, they showcase with historical examples, but what about the cooperators? Don’t evolutionists believe in the “evolutionary arms race” theory? Surely the cooperators are adapting as fast as the cheaters are. Again, there is nothing moral about this in Darwinian interplay. It’s just how individuals reach equilibrium in social relationships, whether they are bacteria, honeybees, wildebeest, or journal publishers.
Fake Science
Here’s another example of the blindness that allows the journal “cooperators” to imagine themselves exempt from the evolutionary forces that drive the “cheaters.” This month in the AAAS open journal Science Advances, Jennifer Allen et al. engage in “Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem.” What is an “information ecosystem” if not an analogy to biological ecosystems under Darwinian selection? Their entire focus is on “fake news” in the media. For the life of them, they cannot turn the microscope on themselves to consider the possibility of fake science in the journals. How are they to demonstrate that they themselves are not subject to amoral, selection-driven forces influencing their own theorizing? It’s always the public that needs better “science education.” It’s always the other journals that need “quality peer review.” But in their own worldview, there’s no “ought” about it. On what basis can they preach:
Arguably the deliberate circulation of false information with the objective of creating confusion and discord is intolerable in principle and should be combatted at any prevalence greater than zero.
This is absurd in the light of evolution. Actually, sowing deceit and confusion sounds like a perfectly legitimate strategy for prey animals. Insects do it with camouflage, don’t they? If humans are mere products of evolution, then these writers are pawns in the evolutionary game, just like every other organism in the ecosystem. Perhaps one could even say that publishing an article like this is merely a strategy of blind, unintelligent forces.
The most alarming evidence of fake science is the rise of spoofing. Humans can be great spoofers (see “Is Nothing Sacred? Public Science 2.0 Revolutionizes Scientific Practices”). But artificial intelligence is getting so good at mimicking scientific publishing, it can churn out legitimate-looking scientific papers — graphics and all — with no empirical input. Basically, spoofed papers are robotic packs of lies dressed up in snazzy garb. What happens to trust in science when spoofing becomes widespread? And what happens to peer review when AI can mimic that, too? There was a scene in the original Westworld movie (1973) where the protagonist (Richard Benjamin), trying to escape a robotic gunslinger (Yul Brynner) in the amusement park run amok, rushes to help a damsel in distress who got locked behind bars and was crying. He pours water into her lips, only to watch in horror as her electronics short out. She was a very realistic fake person! When even the reviewers in peer review can no longer be trusted, what happens to scientific credibility?
The Missing Ingredient
In EMBO Reports last month, Christos A. Ouzounis preached, “Travelling to scientific meetings is a mission, not a vacation.” Sure, traveling to scientific conferences is hard during a pandemic. Sure, it involves sacrifice and troublesome accounting for the scientist, even if it looks like pleasurable time off to outsiders. Sure, it is a necessary part of getting funding. But “science travel should again become a mission to promote research and scholarship and not another burden to endure.” He uses the “should” word three times.
In “The Future of PLOS Biology,” the editors of that publication also use the “should” word three times. The editors stress their commitment to “Open Science,” including open peer review, as an improvement on the traditional ways of publishing scientific findings. And yet how “open” are these preachers when someone presents a paper about evidence supporting intelligent design?
Earlier in this article, a “critical element” was mentioned that, when absent, collapses the credibility of science like a house of cards. When present, it solves the problems discussed above. When emphasized, it restores the luster of science. Many scientists presume they have it without justification, but it is essential to the credibility of science. It’s just one little word.
Integrity.
Tell us how that evolved, Darwinians.
Photo credit: Beatrice Murch, via Flickr (cropped).


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-23--How Now Shall We Live?

How Now Shall We Live?

Christianity is more than a personal relationship with Jesus Christ .
It is also a worldview that not only answers life ’ s basic questions―Where did we come from , and who are we ?
What has gone wrong with the world ?
What can we do to fix it ?
―but also shows us how we should live as a result of those answers .
How Now Shall We Live ?
gives Christians the understanding , the confidence , and the tools to confront the world ’ s bankrupt worldviews and to restore and redeem every aspect of contemporary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , work , law , politics , science , art , music .
This book will change every Christian who reads it .
It will change the church in the new millennium .
True Christianity goes far beyond John 3:16-beyond private faith and personal salvation .
It is nothing less than a framework for understanding all of reality .
It is a worldview .
In How Now Shall We Live ?
, the 2000 Gold Medallion winner for best book about Christianity and society , Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey show that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle between competing worldviews .
Through inspiring true stories and compelling teaching , they demonstrate how to Expose the false views and values of modern culture Live a more fulfilling life the way God created us to live Contend for the faith by understanding how nonbelievers think Build a society that reflects biblical principles

Christianity is more than a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is also a worldview that not only answers life’s basic questions―Where did we come from, and who are we? What has gone wrong with the world? What can we do to fix it?―but also shows us how we should live as a result of those answers. How Now Shall We Live? gives Christians the understanding, the confidence, and the tools to confront the world’s bankrupt worldviews and to restore and redeem every aspect of contemporary culture: family, education, ethics, work, law, politics, science, art, music. This book will change every Christian who reads it. It will change the church in the new millennium.
2000 Gold Medallion Award winner!
From the Back Cover
True Christianity goes far beyond John 3:16-beyond private faith and personal salvation. It is nothing less than a framework for understanding all of reality. It is a worldview. In How Now Shall We Live?, the 2000 Gold Medallion winner for best book about Christianity and society, Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey show that the great spiritual battle today is a cosmic struggle between competing worldviews. Through inspiring true stories and compelling teaching, they demonstrate how to Expose the false views and values of modern culture Live a more fulfilling life the way God created us to live Contend for the faith by understanding how nonbelievers think Build a society that reflects biblical principles


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-24--A Whale of an Evolution Tale

A Whale of an Evolution Tale

Darwinists often point to the whale fossil record as one of the best examples of an evolutionary transition .
But @ @ @ @ @ wrote in The Origin of Species : “ I can see no difficulty in a @ @ @ @ @ , by natural selection , more and more aquatic in their structure and habits , @ @ @ @ @ , till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
” Bears turning into @ @ @ @ @ , instead claiming that other land animals were the real precursors to today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ of all the parameters that would have to be modified , ” says biologist Richard @ @ @ @ @ multiply that by , I don ’ t know — a thousandfold , or more @ @ @ @ @ s the scale of the problem that you ’ re dealing with.
” Long Story @ @ @ @ @ occasional video series that compresses key points in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design @ @ @ @ @ : concise , accessible , and funny .

Darwinists often point to the whale fossil record as one of the best examples of an evolutionary transition. But is it?
Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Bears turning into whales? Scientists today disagree, instead claiming that other land animals were the real precursors to today’s whales.
“Just think of all the parameters that would have to be modified,” says biologist Richard Sternberg, “and then multiply that by, I don’t know — a thousandfold, or more than that. That’s the scale of the problem that you’re dealing with.”
Long Story Short, is a new occasional video series that compresses key points in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design into a very welcome format: concise, accessible, and funny.
Responding to Critics


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-23--COVID-19: How 900 Bytes Changed the World

Human biology is so finely tuned that less than a kilobyte of information can stop the world .
Robert J @ @ @ @ @ Andrés Díaz-Pachón discuss COVID-19 , DNA , and information .
• 01:09 | Introducing Dr. @ @ @ @ @ Assistant Professor in the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Miami and Senior Researcher @ @ @ @ @ • 10:11 | The different kinds of coronaviruses • Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón at the University @ @

Human biology is so finely tuned that less than a kilobyte of information can stop the world. Robert J. Marks and Dr. Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón discuss COVID-19, DNA, and information.
Show Notes
01:09 | Introducing Dr. Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón, Research Assistant Professor in the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Miami and Senior Researcher at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab
| Introducing Dr. Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón, Research Assistant Professor in the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Miami and Senior Researcher at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab 02:46 | A review of DNA
| A review of DNA 04:03 | A small amount of information can make a big change
| A small amount of information can make a big change 08:03 | Coronavirus and information change
| Coronavirus and information change 10:11 | The different kinds of coronaviruses
| The different kinds of coronaviruses 11:05 | Effects on air quality
| Effects on air quality 12:43 | Other impacts of coronavirus
| Other impacts of coronavirus 15:05 | The fundamental importance of information
Additional Resources


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-23--COVID-19: Getting to the Bottom of What Happened in China

It is widely recognized that medical professionals and journalists in China are being silenced if they publish any information about COVID-19 that contradicts the ruling Chinese Communist Party ’ s official narrative .
But now mainland Chinese scientists must ensure that their research publications also toe the CCP party line .
The Ministry of Education ’ s science and technology department recently issued a directive that any research papers that trace the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 “ must be strictly and tightly managed.
” According to CNN ( April 12 , 2020 ) , the directive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University in Shanghai and the China University of Geoscience in Wuhan .
( It has since been taken down . )
In China , research papers are already vetted by the government ; however , this new directive has added several more layers of scrutiny for papers about Covid-19 and its origins .
In February , when researchers from China were still able to publish freely about Covid-19 , some of the published data contradicted CCP ’ s narrative of the origin of the virus and exactly when human-to-human transmission was demonstrated .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ control the avenues of information , their suppression may be having the opposite of its intended effect .
Professor Yanzhong Huang , a senior fellow for global health at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations told CNN , What we don ’ t know The CCP ’ s sensitivity is due in part to the controversies that swirl around the virus ’ s origin .
One theory says the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in bats that were used in experiments to study SARS-CoV at the Wuhan Institute of Virology , as opposed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Wuhan food market as a zoonotic disease ( spread from animals to humans ) .
The Institute had been conducting studies for several years on how SARS spreads from animal to human , with the goal of preventing future outbreaks .
Some people believe sloppy practices led to a graduate student getting bitten by a bat carrying the virus , and then the student unknowingly infected other people .
Others go so far as to claim that the lab was working on a bioterror weapon .
The U.S. Army conducted an investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originated at the Institute or had occurred naturally .
Thus , one CCP narrative accused the U.S. army itself of bringing the virus to China , contradicting earlier scientific studies that concluded that the virus originated among local bats .
Army General Mark Milley , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , said the evidence seems to point to a natural origin for the virus , “ but we don ’ t know for certain.
” ( Reuters , April 14 , 2020 ) Similarly , Defense Secretary Mark Esper , Pentagon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points to a natural origin of the virus but the results of the investigation are inconclusive .
However , he added that he finds it “ hard to trust much of what comes out of the Chinese Communist Party… I don ’ t have much faith that they ’ re even being truthful with us now.
” ( U.S. News & World Report , April 16 , 2020 ) Espers ’ comments highlight the real problem : we don ’ t know and we can ’ t know because there is an information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times , the Wall Street Journal , and the Washington Post were recently told to return their media passes , effectively kicking them out of China .
Citizen journalists reporting from the hardest-hit regions have been detained and silenced : Neither the CDC ’ s infectious disease team nor the WHO was granted permission to enter Wuhan in the first days after the CCP announced the outbreak .
( New York Times , February 7 , 2020 ) , so independent observers are rare .
What we do know Thus the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thanks to information pieced together from leaked documents , intelligence investigations , and data from other countries , we now at least have a better picture of the beginning of the outbreak : A recent Washington Post article on the Wuhan Institute of Virology shows that the laboratory was dinged by the U.S. Embassy in 2018 for poor management and shoddy practices : So the cables indicate that the Wuhan lab was in fact doing virus research , probably intended to prevent another SARS outbreak , but also that it was poorly managed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its high-level designation ( BSL-4 ) .
Agence France Presse had reported very little activity inside the lab and a sign on the door that read , “ Strong Prevention and Control , Don ’ t Panic , Listen to Official Announcements , Believe in Science , Don ’ t Spread Rumors.
” A statement issued by the lab in February claimed , however , that the story was a rumor .
( Medical Xpress , AFP , April 17 , 2020 ) A study by Chinese scientists in the medical journal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show symptoms of Covid-19 was identified on December 1 .
Curiously , this patient , along with 12 of the 41 others that the researchers studied , could not be connected to the Wuhan market .
A critical factor , in any event , was that , as an Associated Press article on leaked documents shows , Chinese authorities knew about human-to-human transmission for six days before they let other nations know on January 20 , 2020 : As a member of the World Health Organization , China had signed the 2005 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members to notify the WHO within 24 hours of assessment of anything that would constitute a “ public health emergency of international concern.
” The documents acquired by Associated Press indicate that China knowingly violated the terms of this document .
The Washington , DC , non-profit Victims of Communism report on the coronavirus timeline shows that , even though the Chinese government ( as well as the WHO ) maintained that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission until January 20 , for a week prior to that , China was amassing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries , with a focus on personal protective equipment .
This chain of events implies that China knew that the virus was contagious and was violating the IHR in order to procure equipment from other countries .
The Lancet study on the first patients hospitalized in Wuhan for Covid-19 also indicated that medical professionals knew about human-to-human transmission as early as December , with forty-one patients admitted to the same hospital by January 2 , 2020 , with symptoms that resembled SARS-CoV .
An article published online on January 24 reports , Others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort .
Taiwan , notably , had sent an email to the WHO on December 31 , warning of probable human-to-human transmission of the virus .
But the warning received little attention .
University of Hong Kong virology expert , Dr. Guan Yi , who had helped identify the 2003 SARS-CoV virus , told Chinese periodical Caixin that , after visiting Wuhan to help scientists track the virus , he left feeling “ powerless , and very angry ” over the lack of precautions that were taken in the city .
Because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also no way to investigate the origin of the disease .
Dr. Guan had told Caixin ( in the New York Times ’ s translation ) : His comments , quoted in Chinese media and reposted in social media , contradicted the government ’ s portrayal of the situation in Wuhan as under control .
What we know ain ’ t so Significantly , The Economist reported some interesting patterns in the erratic spikes in Covid-19 deaths in China .
First , spikes in cases in mainland China are more erratic than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these spikes seem to correspond to major government decisions : One of several examples cited by The Economist was the spike in new Covid-19 cases on February 12 in Hubei province .
( Wuhan is the capital of Hubei . )
New cases increased by 742 % , then fell sharply .
On the same day , the party chiefs of Hubei were sacked .
And then more recently , on Friday , April 17 , China raised its death toll in Wuhan by 1,290 and the number of infections by 325 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the publication of evidence that China ’ s numbers can not be trusted .
The Chinese government is essentially managing information about the epidemic in the same way as it managed information about SARS in 2003 .
Just as in the current pandemic , top-down authoritarian-style government meant no one could report on the 2003 outbreak until they were given permission .
Thus , the timeline in 2003 is similar to the timeline in 2020 .
The first case of SARS was likely mid-November 2002 , but the authorities continued to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it until February , 2003 : In Guangdong province , site of the first outbreak , news spread via text messages that a “ deadly flu ” was going around so the health officials went public , stating there were three hundred cases of “ atypical pneumonia.
” But , as with the current pandemic , the Chinese government downplayed the severity of SARS and the extent of the outbreak and banned media reports about the outbreak for political reasons The WHO issued a travel advisory to Hong Kong and Guangdong and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to issue a travel ban .
In response , the Chinese government issued a statement saying SARS was under control , even though it really wasn ’ t .
One doctor , Dr. Jiang Yanyong , a retired surgeon at Beijing ’ s 301 military hospital , sent emails at the time , accusing the Chinese officials of lying .
TIME magazine ended up publishing his story .
During the current pandemic , people asked about the whereabouts of Dr. Jiang after Dr. Li Wenliang , one of the first doctors to report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Guardian reports that Dr. Jiang has been under house arrest since last year for calling on the Chinese government to reassess the 1989 Tiananmen Square event .
Dr. Jiang is apparently in ill health and can not comment on the current situation .
However , in 2013 he had said in an interview , “ As a doctor , protecting patients ’ health and lives is first and foremost… the most basic requirement for a doctor is to speak the truth .
I have experienced numerous political movements for 50 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy to lie , so I insist on never telling lies.
” Now , Chinese journalists , medical professionals , and scientists face some difficult choices as they are asked to go against their conscience and compromise the integrity of their profession to further a narrative that absolves the CCP of its responsibility to the global community .
Further reading from Heather Zeiger on the COVID-19 crisis in China : China : Rewriting the history of COVID-19 : Making the government the improbable hero of the tale Coronavirus in world without trust In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paranoia and justified mistrust of authorities .
Censorship ?
But coronavirus doesn ’ t care !
Back when SARS was a threat , social media wasn ’ t the giant it is today .
Censorship , secrecy , and detention are less effective tools of control now .
Serious media in China have gone strangely silent .
With a compulsory new app , the government can potentially access journalists ’ phones , both for surveillance and capturing data .
Liu Hu sums up the scene in a few words : “ Outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false reports… Inside China , they are fired for telling the truth .
”

It is widely recognized that medical professionals and journalists in China are being silenced if they publish any information about COVID-19 that contradicts the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s official narrative. But now mainland Chinese scientists must ensure that their research publications also toe the CCP party line.
The Ministry of Education’s science and technology department recently issued a directive that any research papers that trace the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 “must be strictly and tightly managed.” According to CNN (April 12, 2020), the directive appeared on the websites of the Fudan University in Shanghai and the China University of Geoscience in Wuhan. (It has since been taken down.)
In China, research papers are already vetted by the government; however, this new directive has added several more layers of scrutiny for papers about Covid-19 and its origins. In February, when researchers from China were still able to publish freely about Covid-19, some of the published data contradicted CCP’s narrative of the origin of the virus and exactly when human-to-human transmission was demonstrated.
Much as the CCP would like to control the avenues of information, their suppression may be having the opposite of its intended effect. Professor Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow for global health at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations told CNN,
It is no surprise that the government seeks to control related scientific research so that the findings do not challenge its own narrative on the origin of the virus and the government response to the crisis… The danger is that when scientific research is subject to the needs of those in power, it further undermines the credibility of the government narrative, making accusations of underreporting and misinformation more convincing. Nectar Gan, Caitlin Hu, Ivan Watson, “Beijing tightens grip over coronavirus research, amid US-China row on virus origin” at CNN (April 12, 2020)
What we don’t know
The CCP’s sensitivity is due in part to the controversies that swirl around the virus’s origin. One theory says the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in bats that were used in experiments to study SARS-CoV at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as opposed to the more conventional account that it originated in a Wuhan food market as a zoonotic disease (spread from animals to humans). The Institute had been conducting studies for several years on how SARS spreads from animal to human, with the goal of preventing future outbreaks. Some people believe sloppy practices led to a graduate student getting bitten by a bat carrying the virus, and then the student unknowingly infected other people. Others go so far as to claim that the lab was working on a bioterror weapon.
The U.S. Army conducted an investigation to try to determine if the virus originated at the Institute or had occurred naturally. Thus, one CCP narrative accused the U.S. army itself of bringing the virus to China, contradicting earlier scientific studies that concluded that the virus originated among local bats.
Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the evidence seems to point to a natural origin for the virus, “but we don’t know for certain.” (Reuters, April 14, 2020) Similarly, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Pentagon Chief, told media that the evidence points to a natural origin of the virus but the results of the investigation are inconclusive. However, he added that he finds it “hard to trust much of what comes out of the Chinese Communist Party… I don’t have much faith that they’re even being truthful with us now.” (U.S. News & World Report, April 16, 2020)
Espers’ comments highlight the real problem: we don’t know and we can’t know because there is an information vacuum. American journalists from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post were recently told to return their media passes, effectively kicking them out of China. Citizen journalists reporting from the hardest-hit regions have been detained and silenced:
The whereabouts of Chen Qiushi, Fang Bing and Li Zehua have been a mystery since February, and Chinese officials have not publicly commented on them. The three citizen journalists had sought to expose the true scale of the outbreak from the then epicentre by uploading videos to YouTube and Twitter, both banned in mainland China. All of their dispatches revealed a grim side of Wuhan unseen on state-run Chinese media outlets. Mailonline Reporter, “Three coronavirus whistle-blowers remain missing two months after exposing the true scale of the outbreak from Wuhan” at Daily Mail (April 15, 2020)
Neither the CDC’s infectious disease team nor the WHO was granted permission to enter Wuhan in the first days after the CCP announced the outbreak. (New York Times, February 7, 2020), so independent observers are rare.
What we do know
Thus the question remains, what do we know? Thanks to information pieced together from leaked documents, intelligence investigations, and data from other countries, we now at least have a better picture of the beginning of the outbreak:
A recent Washington Post article on the Wuhan Institute of Virology shows that the laboratory was dinged by the U.S. Embassy in 2018 for poor management and shoddy practices:
What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic. Josh Rogin, “State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses” at Washington Post (April 14, 2020)
So the cables indicate that the Wuhan lab was in fact doing virus research, probably intended to prevent another SARS outbreak, but also that it was poorly managed and lacked appropriate personnel for a lab with its high-level designation (BSL-4). Agence France Presse had reported very little activity inside the lab and a sign on the door that read, “Strong Prevention and Control, Don’t Panic, Listen to Official Announcements, Believe in Science, Don’t Spread Rumors.” A statement issued by the lab in February claimed, however, that the story was a rumor. ( Medical Xpress, AFP, April 17, 2020)
A study by Chinese scientists in the medical journal The Lancet indicates that the first patient to show symptoms of Covid-19 was identified on December 1. Curiously, this patient, along with 12 of the 41 others that the researchers studied, could not be connected to the Wuhan market.
A critical factor, in any event, was that, as an Associated Press article on leaked documents shows, Chinese authorities knew about human-to-human transmission for six days before they let other nations know on January 20, 2020:
The early story of the pandemic in China shows missed opportunities at every step, the documents and AP interviews reveal. Under Xi, China’s most authoritarian leader in decades, increasing political repression has made officials more hesitant to report cases without a clear green light from the top. Global Investigative Team, “China didn’t warn public of likely pandemic for 6 key days” at Associated Press (April 15, 2020)
As a member of the World Health Organization, China had signed the 2005 International Health Regulations document, which requires members to notify the WHO within 24 hours of assessment of anything that would constitute a “public health emergency of international concern.” The documents acquired by Associated Press indicate that China knowingly violated the terms of this document.
The Washington, DC, non-profit Victims of Communism report on the coronavirus timeline shows that, even though the Chinese government (as well as the WHO) maintained that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission until January 20, for a week prior to that, China was amassing large amounts of medical supplies from other countries, with a focus on personal protective equipment. This chain of events implies that China knew that the virus was contagious and was violating the IHR in order to procure equipment from other countries.
The Lancet study on the first patients hospitalized in Wuhan for Covid-19 also indicated that medical professionals knew about human-to-human transmission as early as December, with forty-one patients admitted to the same hospital by January 2, 2020, with symptoms that resembled SARS-CoV. An article published online on January 24 reports,
Reports have been released of exported cases in many provinces in China, and in other countries; some health-care workers have also been infected in Wuhan. Taken together, evidence so far indicates human transmission for 2019-nCoV. We are concerned that 2019-nCoV could have acquired the ability for efficient human transmission. – Chaolin Huang et al., Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China, The Lancet (open access)
Others had begun to suspect something of the sort. Taiwan, notably, had sent an email to the WHO on December 31, warning of probable human-to-human transmission of the virus. But the warning received little attention.
University of Hong Kong virology expert, Dr. Guan Yi, who had helped identify the 2003 SARS-CoV virus, told Chinese periodical Caixin that, after visiting Wuhan to help scientists track the virus, he left feeling “powerless, and very angry” over the lack of precautions that were taken in the city. Because the Wuhan market had been cleaned, there was also no way to investigate the origin of the disease. Dr. Guan had told Caixin (in the New York Times’s translation):
I’ve experienced a lot, and I’ve never felt scared, most of these are controllable,” he said, citing previous battles with SARS, avian influenza and other outbreaks. “But this time I’m scared. Austin Ramzy, “Coronavirus deaths are so far mostly older men, many with previous health issues” at New York Times (January 23, 2020)
His comments, quoted in Chinese media and reposted in social media, contradicted the government’s portrayal of the situation in Wuhan as under control.
What we know ain’t so
Significantly, The Economist reported some interesting patterns in the erratic spikes in Covid-19 deaths in China. First, spikes in cases in mainland China are more erratic than those in other countries:
Across the nine Chinese provinces with serious outbreaks, we identified 15 episodes in which new cases of covid-19 jumped by more than 20% in a single day, before quickly returning to earlier levels. Although such spikes can occur in any dataset—because of erratic record-keeping, for example—we found that other countries and regions with covid-19 outbreaks, of a similar size to these provinces, have experienced fewer. “China’s data reveal a puzzling link between covid-19 cases and political events ” at The Economist (April 7, 2020)
Secondly, these spikes seem to correspond to major government decisions:
Of the 15 such episodes observed in the data, two-thirds appeared to occur within a day of the sacking of a provincial official or other significant political event. “China’s data reveal a puzzling link between covid-19 cases and political events ” at The Economist (April 7, 2020)
One of several examples cited by The Economist was the spike in new Covid-19 cases on February 12 in Hubei province. (Wuhan is the capital of Hubei.) New cases increased by 742%, then fell sharply. On the same day, the party chiefs of Hubei were sacked.
And then more recently, on Friday, April 17, China raised its death toll in Wuhan by 1,290 and the number of infections by 325. The changes seem to be in response to the publication of evidence that China’s numbers cannot be trusted.
What happened with SARS, 2003?
The Chinese government is essentially managing information about the epidemic in the same way as it managed information about SARS in 2003. Just as in the current pandemic, top-down authoritarian-style government meant no one could report on the 2003 outbreak until they were given permission. Thus, the timeline in 2003 is similar to the timeline in 2020. The first case of SARS was likely mid-November 2002, but the authorities continued to keep the Chinese people in the dark about it until February, 2003:
In other words, until such time as the Ministry chose to make information about the disease public, any physician or journalist who reported on the disease would risk being persecuted for leaking state secrets… A virtual news blackout about SARS thus continued well into February. Yanzhong Huang Institute of Medicine (US) Forum on Microbial Threats; Knobler S, Mahmoud A, Lemon S, et al., editors., “The SARS epidemic and its aftermath in China: A political perspective ” at Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004
In Guangdong province, site of the first outbreak, news spread via text messages that a “deadly flu” was going around so the health officials went public, stating there were three hundred cases of “atypical pneumonia.” But, as with the current pandemic, the Chinese government downplayed the severity of SARS and the extent of the outbreak and banned media reports about the outbreak for political reasons
When some reports began to question the government’s handling of the outbreak, the provincial propaganda bureau again halted reporting on the disease on February 23. This news blackout continued during the run-up to the National People’s Congress in March, and government authorities shared little information with the World Health Organization until early April. Yanzhong Huang Institute of Medicine (US) Forum on Microbial Threats; Knobler S, Mahmoud A, Lemon S, et al., editors., “The SARS epidemic and its aftermath in China: A political perspective ” at Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004
The WHO issued a travel advisory to Hong Kong and Guangdong and the Wall Street Journal called on other countries to issue a travel ban. In response, the Chinese government issued a statement saying SARS was under control, even though it really wasn’t.
One doctor, Dr. Jiang Yanyong, a retired surgeon at Beijing’s 301 military hospital, sent emails at the time, accusing the Chinese officials of lying. TIME magazine ended up publishing his story.
During the current pandemic, people asked about the whereabouts of Dr. Jiang after Dr. Li Wenliang, one of the first doctors to report on a new SARS-like virus, died. The Guardian reports that Dr. Jiang has been under house arrest since last year for calling on the Chinese government to reassess the 1989 Tiananmen Square event.
Dr. Jiang is apparently in ill health and cannot comment on the current situation. However, in 2013 he had said in an interview, “As a doctor, protecting patients’ health and lives is first and foremost… the most basic requirement for a doctor is to speak the truth. I have experienced numerous political movements for 50 years, I feel deeply that it is easy to lie, so I insist on never telling lies.”
Now, Chinese journalists, medical professionals, and scientists face some difficult choices as they are asked to go against their conscience and compromise the integrity of their profession to further a narrative that absolves the CCP of its responsibility to the global community.
Further reading from Heather Zeiger on the COVID-19 crisis in China:
China: Rewriting the history of COVID-19: Making the government the improbable hero of the tale
Coronavirus in world without trust In China, medical heroism thrives despite both paranoia and justified mistrust of authorities.
Censorship? But coronavirus doesn’t care! Back when SARS was a threat, social media wasn’t the giant it is today. Censorship, secrecy, and detention are less effective tools of control now.
and
Serious media in China have gone strangely silent. With a compulsory new app, the government can potentially access journalists’ phones, both for surveillance and capturing data. Liu Hu sums up the scene in a few words: “Outside of China, journalists are fired for writing false reports… Inside China, they are fired for telling the truth.”