For those who think that the US (and possibly others) are overreacting to Coronavirus:

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:


TRF Supporter
Oct 3, 2016
Reaction score
The source you are citing is a Pseudo science and conspiracy website.
For example, they promote anti vaccination propaganda and misinformation on climate change.
They have claimed that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
You REALLY need to cite more credible sources, not a fringe site in the UK, if you want to present a more convincing case.
Try again.

For, as Karl Popper advocated, any hypothesis that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be science.
It is PSI's claims that cannot be said to be science.

Pat Gordzelik

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2018
Reaction score
O Lord. I see I have stirred up the climate change zealot ideology. I suppose it 'IS' Sunday.
I believe in climate change. It changes 4 times a year in my neck of the woods, and has been changing as
far back as the dinosaur era, even before Gore. But the hypothesis that man can control the weather is a little
too far fetched for me.

I am going to drop commenting on this thread. Don't want to get burned at the stake in Salem.

As they say in jolly ole England,

Tah tah...


Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
Reaction score
Greetings friends and Sheila's!

(sheila's are what I call cowards who hide behind fake names and attempt to drown out voices of dissension).

Never did I say Covid 19 was not a deadly disease. It is, and worthy of concern. My position is and always will be that there are two sides of every discussion/debate. To see situations where a different point of view is drowned out, like was noted here by a
commentator, is indeed, painful. You will notice I do not quote what someone posted, I merely let my observations stand on there own merits.

For consideration is yet another observation for your review.

Science is one way humanity searches for truth. The Covid-19 panic and response are a direct assault on what remains of science. All of the hysteria and the political reaction to it are driven by models and projections, which are nothing more than hypotheses.
It is said that models are only as good as the underlying data and assumptions they incorporate, but that’s misleading. They may use the best available data and assumptions and still be wildly off the mark. For any model of a complex phenomenon—the weather, the climate, financial markets, or the progression of a disease—substitute “our best guess” for the word “model” and you have a better understanding of what the model actually is.
So here is a link of my observation. I must in all fairness warn any snowflakes out there
who believe they can harm, shame, beat me up, bang drums outside my door, chastise me on useless mediums like Twitter, Instagram, facebook, ad nauseam, that it is a futile gesture. I do not utilize mediums that produce nothing, add nothing to the human condition, nor reimburses me for time wasted.
Principia Scientific International is a self-sustaining community of impartial scientists from around the world deliberating, debating and publishing cutting-edge thinking on a range of issues without a preconceived idea of outcomes.
PSI has identified that there are currently two opposing methodologies at conflict:
Traditional scientific method: borne of the Age of Enlightenment and which gave rise to the technological advances of the industrial revolution.
Post-normalism:* pre-deterministic approach where policy and outcome dictate the kind of ‘science’ needed to justify it. Perceived as the most culpable purveyors of this modern malaise are national governments, NGO’s and big corporations.
PSI ASSOCIATES are steadfast in their support of the traditional scientific method as encapsulated in the ideas of Karl Popper. PSI opposes post-normalism and endeavors to provide society with an antidote (from the Greek αντιδιδοναι antididonai, “given against”) to the seemingly gargantuan and pervasive rise of post-normal science by way of our publishing, educational and media-focused materials and presentations. For, as Karl Popper advocated, any hypothesis that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be science.
I am immediately suspicious of a group of scientists who say that they are impartial, in much the same way as I’m suspicious of food products with “food” in the title (eg “cheese food”). They wouldn’t need to tell you if it was obvious from the product. The same goes for scientists or politicians who are absolutely sure that they are the only ones who are right.

dr wogz

Fly caster
Feb 5, 2009
Reaction score
Land of Poutine!
I believe the term "collective" plays a part in these conversations..

An individual will have an idea, an opinion, a statement.. but unless it's supported or backed up, or proven by a group of equally educated peers (of said field of study) it's meaningless.