Scientists
The first thing I learned as I began my scientific studies is that you love your theories, but you can’t fall in love with them. You are often wrong, but the learning you get from the research defines the next steps and helps you more deeply understand your subject. We may trust the scientific process, which involves rigorous processes to prove a theory, but we do not “trust the science.” Why? Because this is a political stance; it has nothing to do with the scientific method.
My cytology professor had a great quote. “Education replaces ignorance with misinformation.” Science is constantly changing. Helium-3 activation analysis (a tough part of Chem 1A at Cal) actually proved that my father’s PhD thesis was wrong. Was he upset? No, he was fascinated at how science had advanced. His tools were the best available at the time. In grad school, we called a lot of the DNA in our cells “nonsense DNA.” We didn’t know what it coded for. This DNA is actually critical in regulation. New capabilities allowed us to understand this, many years after I left school. This is how science works. We’ll never be done.
Government Scientists
Unlike real scientists, government scientists are rewarded not on accomplishment, but on compliance with politicians’ objectives. If you work for a university or other government-sponsored agency, you may have to “publish or perish,” but what you can’t do is discover something that flies in the face of a political objective or political future. This explains, in part, the value of tenure. Once you have it, (and have fulfilled the wishes of your masters,) you are safe, even if your productivity is minimal. The government favors those who will say whatever they are expected to say (which probably explains Fauci’s many flipflops). At the end of the day, politicians want power, money and electoral success, as many probably don’t thrive in the real world. They will only work with “experts” as long as those “experts” toe the line.
Feel like trusting these people now?
Follow the Money
The pharmaceutical company is tightly regulated and for the most part, throughout history, has been the unrecognized heroes of the global economy. Each successful drug takes many years to develop, test and prove. At the same time, hundreds of medications are tested and fail to advance. This is quite costly, especially with the newer biologics. You need expert scientists with innovative ideas, expensive lab equipment and a flotilla of administrators to wade through the lengthy FDA processes.
Covid changed the rules of the game, funding labs to create vaccines (while ignoring the treatment options). It was a gigantic win for Big Pharma. As long as they came up with something that sounded reasonably plausible, they cut their costs as well as ensure revenue flow. Given the actual death rate among those who had no pre-existing conditions and who had adequate D-3 levels (almost none), this over-reaction was expected, but should have been cut off a lot faster. Yet, the government scientists continued to exploit a narrative that kept their enormous paychecks coming, as well as elevating Fauci to cult hero status.
One proof point that is hard to argue with was how government scientists encouraged people to riot with BLM while insisting that no one could attend an outside religious service (which was distanced).
What About Climate ‘Science’?
Shouldn’t we believe the climate scientists? On the whole, no. When a scientist says the science is settled, he is representing a policy, not speaking as a scientist. As I noted earlier, science is almost never settled. However, the “climate emergency” has been very lucrative for some and established successful careers for others. By cleaving to the views of politicians, the World Economic Forum, Al Gore and Greta Thunberg, you can see your status elevated. Still, there are many naysayers in the scientific community, but it can be hard to hear from them. For the most part, they have been cancelled.
The Journals
Scientific journals used to be the best place to go to understand the state of the science at this point in time. All articles were peer-reviewed which added credibility. But now, the editors have decided to play politics, in the case of Nature, endorsing Joe Biden. Some Nobel laureates gathered together to back Obama, using their prominence as a hammer. This wasn’t a scientific decision; it was purely political.
But keep in mind, “Nature” and all the rest require funding of basic research in order to have something to publish. Scientists create grant proposals and only a few are selected. As such, for a time, AIDs research garnered a sizable portion of the science budget when things like heart disease and cancer experienced cuts. A prudent decision? Or, instead, politics as usual.
What To Do?
First, stop accepting the label of science denier. Questioning is what scientists do. Next, consider the motivation of the individual issuing advice, decisions and mandates. Are they acting independently or are they influenced in a way that hurts their credibility?
Third, do the homework. There is data out there from legitimate scientists, but you have to look. Ignore government websites. Compare studies. You’ll learn a lot as you see, where, in some cases, the science is in flux. There is no real agreement. Just because an opinion is voiced as the majority opinion, there is no voting here. Stand your ground. Share your information with people. You’d be surprised how convincing you can be when you have the data and no agenda behind it other than trying to understand a scientific problem.
