The lack of a basic Scientific Culture*
makes people lack the necessary knowledge
to evaluate the actual scientific validity of the information.
The problem is that in this socio-cultural condition the Mainstream mediacan allow itself to censor and denigrate information of fundamental importance.
Two evidences on information manipulation
Deepening the analysis of the information available today at the institutional level – with a strictly scientific approach – at least two evidences emerge:
● the fact that much “official” information contradicts the facts (Scientific evidences*).
This emerges precisely in the case of statistics disclosed by global organizations regarding Coronavirus which, as has been said, contradict each other (in this case one of the two pieces of information is certainly false).
The problem is not indifferent, since the institutions have imposed treatments on people with this method, and also social attitudes (such as lockdown).
.
In the case of Coronavirus 2020 perhaps the most significant false information is that of the statistics on the mortality of the sick, which derive precisely from data manipulation.
Such information is not in fact based on objective data. The “licenses” that the disseminators (both the media and the institutional organizations) take in this case are many. Among the others:
– these statistics, to define the mortality rate of the disease, do not take into account all people suffering from Coronavirus, but only those in whom the disease has manifested itself in a serious way.
– these statistics do not consider the deads due to Coronavisrus, but more generally take into consideration the deaths that “had Coronavirus” (but that were also afflicted with other serious pathologies).
It is based on this manipulated information that
drastic decisions have been made
like those of the Society Lockdown*.
While in South Korea, where it was based on the number of people who actually contracted the virus,
statistics have shown that
Coronavirus was a “simple influence”,
and that the epidemic
could have been eradicated
without taking extraordinary measures.
Furthermore, if you analyze the disclosure of information based on purely scientific considerations (informations recognized at the level of official institutions), it emerges that
● some information now censored and disparaged by the Mainstream media is actually information from the Scientific foundation*, and therefore of great importance for the health of the human being (and for social security).
It is noted that particularly advanced forms of censorship are used today, since these are no longer developed by decisions of heads of governmental bodies, thus becoming easily identifiable by the public (as was the case with Obama who prevented certain terms from being used by law used against terrorism). Today much of the censorship is entrusted to algorithms (also appropriately manipulated).
In fact, today Google, Facebook and Twitter censor what is not compatible with institutional information.
On Google important information is buried under thousands of links. And on social media, the posts and accounts of those who, even without breaking the regulations from the platform, are considered to be “outside the box” are eliminated.
.
Because of this today
people only know
a part of the truths determining their existence.
How is it possible to know how things really are if alternative information to institutional information is missing from the panorama of information available? (we talk about information based on scientific topics).
In this case, it should be noted, the functioning of the Democracy° is demolished. In fact, people are not only unable to make the optimal choices for their existence, but they are also unable to understand whether the parliamentary representatives they elected have done a good job. So who to choose in the next election.
.
Bear in mind that in the current socio-cultural dimension people not only do not understand the “alternative” point of view in its essence. But they are not even able to understand the “explanations” of the institutional bodies (this would seem to be the purpose of the institutions).
In such a condition
Citizens end up “believing”
institutional information
with an act of faith.
Which makes citizens extremely vulnerable: it exposes them to the risk of accepting for good (in terms of care and social solutions) that may not be in line with their actual interests.
