I have long spoken about the issues inherent in anthropogenic global climate change due to carbonification.  In short, people write up models that give the results they want, don’t check them against reality, write them up in such a way that they cannot be reproducible, and declare their findings significant.  We see this in other areas. 

Vaccination is starting to look scary with all the new research, and what is the sane person to do about it?  There are studies showing that you have equivalent chances of significant lifelong medical complications from the newer version of the measles vaccine as you do from the measles virus.  The new vaccine no longer promotes lifelong immunity.  There are studies showing that getting this vaccination in conjunction with a battery of other vaccines, is strongly correlated with increased rates of childhood illness.  All of those studies have been buried, not refuted.  Often the authors are subjected to ad hominem criticism, seeking to silence them through shame and ignominy, rather than any direct address of the methods or underlying data.

In all these fields, and so many more, there is one main problem.  Skepticism of a claim is now handled as blind denial.  My previous paragraph, for example, would lead many to categorize me as one of those anti-vaxxers.  I am not, with my family all vaccinated in an age-appropriate manner.   But the instant I mention that there is another opinion, many people assume I am opposed to the whole concept.

When I was a kid, the DPT gave you lifelong immunity to pertussis.  Vaccinated adults did not develop or carry whooping cough.  Today, the pertussis vaccine only keeps the vaccinated from developing symptoms.  This is why pregnant women are pressured not only to get the booster if they are more than two years out from their last booster, but to require all family members and caretakers to get the shot.  (But get this: daycare providers are not required to get this shot every two years, nor is it considered appropriate to demand your baby only be cared for by those who are “up” on this shot!)

What is strange is that vaccine titers (the blood tests to detect antibody levels) are usually trusted to identify immunity to pertussis, unless a woman is pregnant, in which case the titers for her and everyone around her are not trusted.  Why this difference?  No one says.   But if the pregnant woman is exposed to measles, those titers are considered accurate.  Again, no explanation.  So, if your titer for measles say you are immune, they don’t require a shot, but they pressure you and all your family to get the pertussis vaccine no matter what the titer says.  I also know that vaccines aren’t cheap, with the 2-month vaccines apparently costing $2000, according to the bill my youngest just got due to an insurance filing error.  This adds a layer of motive to suspicions, and this CAUSES skepticism.

Our scientific fields, including the medical fields, are filled with hubris.  In so many situations, if the research was conducted with the best practices, there would be no need to become defensive and accuse the opposition of denial of standard knowledge.  Instead, we could just explain what the issue is with the studies that show data differently.  We could have debates and discussions.  We would solidify our scientific understanding, and be a better society for it.  However, money, power, politics, and other non-ethical considerations have found their way into these situations. 

All science is susceptible to bias.  However, a good scientist does all they can to limit the bias.  Good scientists today are as rare as good journalists, with the results plain to see.  I skimmed a few of the studies that led to some of the new MAHA food and alcohol guidelines, as well as some of the opposition research presented.  I read up on studies on vegan diets and carnivore diets, and a number of others.  These studies directly correlated with the views held by those funding the studies.  All these studies, for the most part, followed similar protocols and methodologies, and all were equally flawed in certain ways.  Whether one believes any particular study is almost entirely dependent on one’s preconceived notions and politics, which makes these studies practically worthless. 

We would like to trust experts, since they are ostensibly the ones who know the intricate details and determine fact from fancy.  But the 2020 pandemic revealed that our experts were not really impartial seekers of truth, but a cabal seeking to use their credentials to promote a particular worldview.  The subsequent fracture of the oligarchy of experts was needed, but it has harmed the public.  I cannot blame skeptics for their lack of trust, especially after we destroyed our society during WuFlu.  Those experts insisted that no one question their expertise, even when that expertise was found to be sorely wanting.  But without experts, who are we going to trust when a subject is beyond our experience? 

Frankly, I am warmed by the myriad amateur skeptics who have been questioning the experts, even if their challenges are naïve or misinformed.  They are performing the role the experts should have been doing all along.  The experts should be the biggest skeptics, not of people challenging them, but of their own work, so that once every conceivable way a study could be tainted has been dispensed with, what remains is of the highest quality we can achieve.  The data and methodology would be open for all to scrutinize, anyone could repeat the findings of the study, one could demonstrate how all challenges to the study have been adequately addressed.  Or, more importantly, the experts could humbly acknowledge that their findings do leave room for doubt, discussion, and further research, and actively work to counter those who attempt to spin any questionable results as shocking findings. 

Of course, the problem with my solution is that in our overly hedonistic society, people only want sound bites.  I am busy raising five kids.  I don’t have time to double check everything.  I have to trust someone, and someone who matches my biases is going to get my trust.  I then find myself within a tribe of like-minded people, which then becomes an echo chamber where nothing gets solved and arguments devolve to demagoguery.  Substantial arguments fall prey to the TLDR tag, assuming we even make it past the headline.  So it also becomes incumbent upon us to spend a little more time questioning, a little more time being skeptical, and perhaps join in with the other amateur skeptics to make sure our experts cannot rest in complacency.