I don't need creativity and imagination in the statements I made. They're simply born from Covid-era science and the "oodles of research" that was thrown at us. Some members of the "scientific" and political communities were motivated by bad intentions, others were trying to do God's work. In the end, "trust science" isn't enough for me because not all science is trustworthy. I won't blindly believe because someone named Brock or Joe or with the title Dr. tells me "it's the science". We all know how Covid turned out - greed, control, and politics veiled much of the true science that was going on.
"Oodles of research" includes both bad and good research. Even with good research, poor correlations and conclusions can be drawn. From those poor correlations and conclusions, damaging containment and countermeasures can be put in place. My comment was "trust the science" is a red flag for me because it insinuates that all research is created equal. In order for me to decide where I stand I need the deeper details of the research, how it was conducted, data analysis methods, motivations of the researchers, etc.
Not sure where you pull "conspiracy theories" from my OP to lump me in as a Dusty supporter. It's that type of crap that makes me wonder about your legitimacy and intent. If I don't blindly support your view or science, I must be "one of them". Classy.
If you’re not a Dusty supporter, my apologies, but that comment was made sort of tongue in cheek. I can certainly see how one might find that insulting.
But your statement blindly insinuates that everything that happened around Covid means CWD is no different. There was virtually zero research done in the early stages of COVID. That is vastly different. Good CWD research began 20-30 years ago. There’s en entire field of prion research, not just CWD research.
We went from barely knowing what covid was to shutting the country down in a matter of months. Good research isn’t conducted at that speed. It is a ridiculous statement to compare the two. That’s not logical skepticism, it’s laziness and like I said, a stance that shows a lack of creativity.
At this point the wildlife researchers have put GPS collars on thousands of deer in multiple states. They are literally able to catch deer, test them, recapture them, test them again, then get a mortality signal, do a necropsy and test them again.
Multiple studies conducted by different people, years apart, where they can infect deer with saliva, intranasally, through environment transmission. Multiple instances of documented vertical transmission, doe to fawn. They can find infectious prions on mineral licks, in feed, on feeders, in soil. They can create synthetic prions and infect animals with them and create the same disease.
I don’t think I’ve said “trust the science” one time on this forum. I’ve simply provided scientific evidence and referenced actual scientific work. Work that has been repeated and shown in multiple research efforts from multiple research groups.
For one to look at the collection of work done around this disease and conclude that there isn’t enough “details”, seems a lot more like an unwillingness to believe what’s right in front of ones face. And when the common denominator is that the overwhelming majority of people taking that stance are mad about baiting restrictions, it isn’t hard to conclude that healthy skepticism or the “details” of studies is not the problem.
If this disease popped up 3 months ago, your comparison would be much more valid, and I would probably agree with you. But that is obviously quite far from reality.
