Karl Popper's Falsification Principle: how to divide science from non-science. Science: For a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested (for medicine this means with evidence) and conceivably proven false. "The science" is only what could be proven false.

For Popper, science should always attempt to disprove a theory, rather than attempt to continually support theoretical hypotheses (eg that epidemiological modelling based on limited data & possibly flawed assumptions is a reflection of reality despite evidence to the contrary).

Scientific progress happens through proving theories wrong or partially wrong. The moment something is declared outside the boundaries of being able to be proved wrong (eg lockdowns, face masks & vaccines) then it is no longer science but a faith based set of unmovable beliefs.

The true scientist will always seek to find out how a PCR test can't possibly diagnose a disease, why cloth masks increase infections rather than decrease them, why lockdowns kill rather than save lives, why vaccines which skipped years of human trials can cause many deaths, etc

Because that is the only way in which scientific progress can be made: testing theories until the theories, or part of them, can be proved wrong and a new or modified theory is required to explain that aspect of reality, which in turn can be tested and improved. That is science.

Also read this thread: https://twitter.com/theotherphilipp/status/1358455231437275139?s=19

Having an a priori position on vaccinations is an entirely faith based anti-scientific position. Anybody who declares themselves pro or anti-vaxx as a matter of principle is not endorsing science, but faith, in both cases. Vaccines can fail or succeed: testing does require years.

Anybody who calls a mRNA genetic editing intervention a vaccination is also not endorsing science, but marketing for human gene editing. Science always requires precision on all levels, including terminology.

@threadreaderapp pls unroll