Democracy Has Prevailed.

June 6, 2021

Wendy Bell Responds To Being Called Wrong With A Very Sad Story.

Posted by

Uh-oh. Something (or someone) has gotten under Wendy Bell's MAGA skin.

If you can stomach it (and usually I can't) go hear what she said on her super official mid-to-lo tek basement broadcast this past Friday. Start at about 6:30 in:

I want to thank Bill Krausmann on twitter. This is one of my detractors...
She's reacting to this tweet:

Hat's off to Mr Krausmann! The Angel of Death named him on air! It's a wonderful thing to watch Wendy Bell go all snowflake-y over being criticized about her honesty and integrity.

Facts don't care about your feelings, Wendy. Didn't you know that?

In response, she spent a great deal of time trying so so hard to debunk the science linked to that tweet.[Spoilers: She fails.]

Instead of going point by point let's take a deeper look into her epistemology and at how she's trying to validate her integrity to her misty-eyed followers.

Luckily for us, Brother Jon has posted her apologia "explaining" why she's never ever a liar:

The text:

You know, when I was a little girl – I've told this story before. It's humbling and it's true.

When I was a little girl, I was a hell of a liar. I was a bad liar. I'm a bad liar still. But I lied all the time. I lied about anything. And I think most kids go through that phase.

I was queen, champion, grand higharfent (?) liar. Ok?

To the point where Brad Fleischer, in my 5th grade yearbook wrote, “Have a nice summer. And don't lie.”

I kid you not.

After you lose your friends and have a birthday party to which no one shows up – happened to me – you start to re-evaluate how you're living your life. Everybody can't be wrong about me. The problem has to be me. The only person who can change me, is me. And you hope so much that your children learn that very message at a young age because getting that epiphany knocked into you down the road stinks. And you become more set in your ways more stubborn more reluctant to ever be introspective and to become, “you know what? I don't like how I am. I need to change.”

I think fundamentally, because of that experience I had as a child, and in disappointing my parents in every which way, then one day I woke up and I was like, that's it.

I abhor lying. And I abhor liars.

And I think that, fundamentally, is so much of the foundation of what I do and what we do here.

Before we continue, let me say how very sorry I am to learn of this episode (and I'm being sincere here). I can't imagine very many more traumatic childhood experiences than an empty birthday party.

Let's continue to the next video:

The text:

It has to be built on trust.

You have to be able to listen to me and believe that I would never deceive.

It's a very rare thing in our world anymore, don't you think? To have that kind of relationship.

But I base not only my job on it, my reputation on it, but my character on it.

On that, we can agree!

However, I am not sure Wendy Bell sees the fatal flaw in her argument. Do you see it?

She's telling us that we should trust that she'll never deceive us because she says abhors dishonesty. 

In other words: Because I said so.

But that's not enough to show that it's true, Wendy. And here's why.

In 1974, physicist Richard Feynman gave commencement address at CalTech in which he said:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
As far as I can tell, the whole scientific method is structured as a bulwark against fooling yourself - that nothing is ever scientifically verified "just because I said so."

For example, let's take a look at one of the papers referenced on the Wendy-debunking page in France.

You'll note it's published at the New England Journal of Medicine. They describe their peer-review process here. Basically, nothing gets published without going through the journal's review process. The math is checked. The methodology is checked and so on. If there's an issue with something with the paper, it's revised. If the revisions satisfy the issue at hand, only then is the paper published.

It's not accepted as solid science simply on the authors say it is.  

The method is a system of checks designed to weed out conclusions that can't be supported by evidence. If it's clear that evidence does support a conclusion, it's safe to say that that conclusion is true.

We can do this for any peer reviewed paper that says that the vaccines are safe and effective.

There's always room for revision/correction, of course. But as Carl Sagan once said that, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

In order for that paper at the NEJM, or any of the science supporting the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines, to be incorrect an extraordinary amount of evidence would need to be shown. On top of that, a credible explanation as to why it was all ignored would also have to be shown.

Your turn, Wendy. Where is your extraordinary evidence about the vaccines? Where are your extraordinary peer reviewed papers? Produce them please.

Quoting an article at an anti-vaxx website written by a guy who believes that the measles vaccine kills more people than measles about another guy whose warnings about the "dangerous" spike proteins has already been debunked here, is really not going to help your case, Wendy.

And you might want to take a look at this before continuing with the "spike protein" rants.

Who're we kidding? You're going to ignore the science and more people are going to get sick because of it.

In the meantime, the vaccines work and they're safe.

The science says so.

at