Trust the Science

“Trust the science,” they say…

But which science?
And who are the real scientists?

The ones who follow the consensus,
the approved narrative,
the funded research,
the expert on the screen?

Or the ones who keep asking questions
when something doesn’t quite add up?

Because history has a funny habit
of making yesterday’s certainty
tomorrow’s embarrassment.

1890s:
Bayer’s new “non-addictive” alternative to morphine —
a cough remedy marketed for children.
It was heroin.
They even named it from the German for heroic.

1900s:
Calomel teething powder.
Mercury rubbed onto babies’ gums.
Pink disease.
Swollen, peeling hands and feet.
Screaming for months.
And some died.

1910s:
Crisco — modern, scientific,
a healthier alternative to old-fashioned lard.
The process that made it solid
created trans fats,
eventually banned as unsafe.

1920s:
Radithor.
Radioactive water for vitality.
Eben Byers drank around fourteen hundred bottles.
His jaw was eventually removed piece by piece.

1930s:
A new sulfa drug dissolved in diethylene glycol —
antifreeze.
Children died.
And only then did safety testing become a requirement.

1940s:
Doctors smoking Camel cigarettes
in their consulting rooms.
Professional authority behind the advertising.

1950s:
DDT sprayed around homes, gardens
and children at school.
A Nobel Prize winner behind its discovery.

1960s:
Thalidomide.
“Remarkably safe.”
Prescribed for morning sickness.
Thousands of babies born with devastating deformities.

1970s:
Butter out.
Margarine in.
The healthy alternative.
Until the very fat we were encouraged to eat
was eventually recognised as unsafe.

1980s:
Take the fat out.
Put the sugar back in.
And watch obesity climb.

1990s:
OxyContin.
Minimal addiction risk, they said.
The company later pleaded guilty to criminal misbranding.
The opioid death toll ran into hundreds of thousands.

2000s:
Vioxx.
A modern answer to pain.
Until it wasn’t.

None of these were fringe.

They had scientists.
Doctors.
Journals.
Professional bodies.
Regulators.
White coats.

And the people who followed that advice
weren’t stupid.

They were trusting
the most qualified people available.

So why shouldn’t we question
today’s certainties?

Germ theory.
Transformed medicine
with practical value.

Financial incentives
influence
which scientific models
are researched, funded and developed

Germ theory supports industries —
diagnostics, antimicrobials, vaccines, pharmaceuticals,
testing and infection-control technologies.

Terrain theory asks:
What is the condition of the host?
What role do nutrition, environment and metabolism play?
What makes one person susceptible
while another is not?

Test the questions.

If one model attracts more funding
because it leads to more commercially valuable interventions,
is it really anti-science
to ask whether that affects
which questions get studied?

Following the scientific method —
questioning assumptions, examining incentives
and asking what else might be true?

What funding goes into
research into adverse reactions?
Research into neurological disorders?
Research into heart attacks,
heart problems,
SADS,
SIDS,
blood clots,
pneumonia,
lung disease
and cancers?

Why shouldn’t we examine
questions raised by clinicians and researchers
such as Angus Dalgleish?

Why shouldn’t we investigate
MMR without predetermined conclusions?

To simply to find out more?

C-19 j a b s.

Pfizer.
AstraZeneca.
Blood clots.
Myocarditis.
Cardiovascular events.
Neurological concerns.

Adverse events were recognised.
Associations disputed (why, is that science or lack of funding?)
Some people say something happened to them
that a system struggles to explain.

Then investigate it.

Study it.
Don’t ridicule the question.
Don’t shut down the conversation.
Don’t tell people they are stupid
for wanting more evidence.

Because if the answer is no,
the research should demonstrate that.

And if the answer is yes —
people deserve to know.

Show us the data.
Show us who funded it.
Show us who benefits.
Show us who profits.
Show us what was measured.
Show us what wasn’t measured.
Show us what was excluded.
Show us what was left out
as a confounding variable.
Show us the adverse reactions.
Show us the people who didn’t fit the model.
Show us the studies that weren’t funded.
Show us the questions that were never asked
Such as the animals dying in the trials

And show us what happens
when
there is no financial incentive to find the answer.

Because financial conflicts of interest
don’t automatically make research wrong.

But pretending they don’t matter
isn’t science.

Science isn’t a person.
It isn’t a government department.
It isn’t Pfizer.
It isn’t AstraZeneca.
It isn’t a professional body.
It isn’t a pharmaceutical company.
It isn’t an expert demanding obedience.

Science is supposed to be a method.

Observe.
Question.
Test.
Challenge.
Replicate.
Discover you’re wrong.
Change your mind.
Try again.

That’s science.
So perhaps the person saying,
“I’m not convinced yet,”
isn’t stupid.

Perhaps they’re discerning.
Perhaps they simply need to know more.
Perhaps scepticism isn’t the opposite of science.
Perhaps blind acceptance is.

So yes —

“Trust the science,” they say.

But respect me
if I choose otherwise.

Respect my right to ask questions.
Respect my right to examine the risks.
Respect my right to weigh the evidence
and reach my own conclusion.

But don’t call me stupid
because I refuse to outsource my judgement.

Show us the data.
Show us who funds it.
Show us who profits.
Show us who benefits.
Show us what was left out.
Show us what wasn’t studied.
Show us what remains unknown.

Because perhaps the real scientific question
isn’t simply:

“What does the evidence say?”

Perhaps it is also:

“Who decided what evidence was worth collecting?”

And which questions
were quietly left unfunded?

Which hypotheses
were dismissed before they were properly tested?

Which of today’s instructions
will our grandchildren one day read aloud
with disbelief?

Which “settled science”
will turn out to have been
a question we simply stopped asking?

So who are the real scientists?
The ones following what they’re told?
Or the ones still prepared to say:

“What if we’re wrong?”
And if asking that question
is no longer allowed —

Then what is the science all about, then?