(NaturalHealth365)  Being willing to admit mistakes were made – that original hypotheses and assumptions were wrong, and that new approaches must be taken – is not indicative of failing science.  It’s indicative of a scientific process doing what it is supposed to do, the same scientific process that has been driving human progress for centuries.  Now, after more than two years since news broke in Wuhan, China, many are asking if this same scientific process has been aptly applied to the COVID shot rollout and other pandemic measures.

One unexpected voice questioning the narrative: a respected member of the advisory committee for vaccines for the country of Israel.  He was recently interviewed on the YouTube channel UnHerd about his thoughts on everything from herd immunity to jab passports to lockdowns.

Israeli COVID shot advisory board member: “We have made mistakes”

The interview, posted to YouTube on January 18, 2022, features Professor Cyrille Cohen, Head of Immunology at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv and, as noted, a member of the Israeli government’s advisory committee for vaccines.  In it, Professor Cohen admits to several “mistakes” that he believes he and his colleagues have made over the course of the pandemic, including:

• Jab passports (known in Israel as Green Passes), which Cohen believes are no longer relevant and should be phased out soon
• The role of the COVID shot and viral transmission
• The massive lockdowns, including closures of schools
• The role of natural immunity from prior infections as a means to achieve herd immunity

As of January 25, 2022, this video is still available on YouTube.  Watch here to see the interview in its entirety:

Lest we forget: This is what the scientific process looks like

For some interesting context, consider this step-by-step definition of the scientific process from Highline College in Des Moines, Washington:

1. “Make an observation or observations.
2. Form a hypothesis – a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
3. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
4. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
5. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.”

Of course, it’s not always possible to conduct perfectly designed “experiments” involving novel drugs, public health measures, and other more nuanced issues.  But Highline College goes on to highlight these features of what science truly is: namely, that it is unbiased, falsifiable, and reproducible:

• Unbiased: “The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.”
• Falsifiable: “For a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific, it must be subject to an experiment and/or discovery that could prove the theory or hypothesis untrue.  A belief which cannot be disproved, even in principle, is not considered scientific.”
• Reproducible: “Anyone should be able to reproduce, at least in principle, the results obtained through the scientific method.  In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times.  If the original claims are not verified, the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied” (emphasis ours).

Taking this into context, ask yourself: Is the scientific process being honored right now?

Of course, medical experts, researchers, and even elected officials seem to be doing their best to respect scientific discourse and due diligence, to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable, and have as much data as possible made available to the public in the name of informed consent.  But is this the norm – or the exception to the norm?  What do you think?

Sources for this article include:

Livescience.com
Highline.edu
CDC.gov