Technology

Saying those things before having any data to back them up was indeed anti-science.

Almost all those things haven't been proven true or accepted by most experts. Stop lying.
Asking questions is fine to inform yourself. Asking questions to purposely push a narrative isn't

is now begrudgingly accepted by the experts.

Gonna need a source on that one champ.

Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?

ok, sure.

Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?

That was contingent on half the population not making it their identity to spread disease.

Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?

Yes, it's been proven time and time again that cloth masks reduce transmission and severity.

Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy of a drug that was not studied for the long term?

Yes, it is antiscience for laymen to question things they don't understand at all.

Was it antiscience to question the long term side effects of a drug that was not studied for the long term?

Same.

Started out pretty good though!

Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?
YES, there was little evidence AND there still isn't conclusive evidence that it was. They just used it as a reason to be racist toward Asian (and it did provably increase hate crime toward Asian people).

Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?
YES, if people would have actually isolated, we would have had far fewer cases shortly after.

Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?
YES, they are still effective and far better than not wearing a mask at all.

Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy/long term side effects (I'm combining 2 questions here) of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
YES, the vaccine was not given to people widespread until after thorough testing. It's fact that almost any vaccine side effect will occur within the first few weeks of it being administered. There was also information and testing about the efficacy before it was widely distributed.

People questioning this stuff were given the answers by scientists, specialists, people with knowledge, and they outright denied the truth of the data. It's one thing to question, it's another thing to yell questions into the void and pretend you don't hear the answers.

Nobody is "begrudgingly" accepting scientific results. But you want to tell that story, right? You're looking for an "us vs. them" situation, but that's not how science works.

Also, I think some of your facts are not actually facts.

Finally, a question itself is not "anti-science". How could it be? However, if you're using a question as a smokescreen to confuse readers or viewers to push your selfish political agenda, that would be shady politics, and it would have nothing to do with science at all.

To say, as in to state as fact, yes.

To question, no.

There's a wide gap between "covid originated in a lab" and "covid could have originated in a lab".

Thank you!

Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?

Yes. It would be accurate to say that it is possible that the Covid originated in a lab in China, but the evidence is mixed and it is certainly not provided.

Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?

No idea, because I don't know who you claimed to say it, when they said it or in which county

Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?

Yes - because it's much too simplistic. Depending on the design of the mask, the material and how it was warn cloth masks certainly had an effect on reducing infection - in particular infected mask wearers are less likely to infect others

Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy of a drug that was not studied for the long term?

No - and questions about long-term efficacy were front and centre of studies into how long (for example) vaccines shots lasted. The point was that even short - term efficacy was pretty useful.

Was it antiscience to question the long term side effects of a drug that was not studied for the long term?

No. It's absolutely scientific to ask questions about it. It is is anti-science tio make stuff up about probable long-term effects when the mechanism of the drug are pretty well understood.

At one point or another every one of those questions was considered antiscience and is now begrudgingly accepted by the experts.

Some of them are "anti-science", some aren't. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make, other than "Experts bad"

I just want to point out that your very first question is irrelevant to the rest. Whereever it originated, we needed to stop the spread but propagandists got hold of people through paranoia and pushed them to behave in ways that INCREASED the spread, and it started with stuff like the first question.

Who gives a shit, frankly. The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.