Science Neutrality Is Not the Goal of a Developing Theory: Origins

[TheRealRestoreInc.]

OPINION

NEUTRALITY is not really a transferrable concept – not between fields of science discovery where one branch is actively pursuing policy-structured clinical and laboratory trials for conceptual expectations – where theories/ hypotheses/ experimentation/ more analyses/ tentative conclusions – are the accepted form of communication and expression, while another branch relies on testimonials of participants and results, not theories, are emphasized. There is not inherent neutrality between philosophies of life’s meaning to “us”, and NOT between those either adhering to one or the other – A) OFFICIAL POLICY BASED ON LIMITED SCOPE AND CONTROLLED STUDIES or, B) Evidence and results without official approval, official indoctrination, official recognition or official verifiable experiences (experienced by the officials themselves).

Wikipedia cannot (has not) actually fulfill its claim of a principle of neutrality in its published works while investigating SARS-CoV-2 origins. The reason is that Wikipedia neutrality policy in science depends on a majority opinion.

When discoveries are made, it is often the educated ruling establishment that is presently spreading knowledge (about WHAT IS, and WHAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, and WHAT IS MOST LIKELY SO THEREFORE “most likely” COUNTS AS TRUE UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE) that is most troubled when it receives the shock of discovery that is at opposite or what was feared rather than what was the prevailing feel-good CONSENSUS among themselves and among the peasant majority that the rulers have convinced.

What can Wikipedia put in writing about a virus that will never be discovered by humans? When the one and only first “novel” coronavirus virus that infected a creature (human) unexpectedly, was there no human ready to document what the virus was, no human to observe what it did? Perhaps there was a witness.

One witness will never become a “majority”. The witness will not be believed. Science cannot do everything. Faith in the testimony of the witness is not hidden in an obscure, unused clause of The Scientific Method.

There can be no “consensus” of neutrality among a majority, when that majority consensus becomes a “we believe” – as the pool of researchers does a membership discussion of “are you in?”, being a “consensus” of scientific method-conclusive, “most likely the virus came from a natural origin” calming effect statement, here-is-the-press-release-you -have-all-been-waiting-for-from-us, based weakly on indirect and reproducible viral data that has little to no connection to the point in history where COVID-19 began.

It spread in the Wuhan area. For those months in 2019 when the virus “was believed” to have infected people, we should expose the actions to light, of those who were employed in biological warefare research…just to clear the record…and clear them of any hint of lab-origin virus release.

But leave Wikipedia out of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view