Study Says: “Society is rejecting [mainstream] facts” — Public Losing Trust in Medical Establishment

by Justin Deschamps,

A study published in the American Journal of Medicine suggests that the public is losing faith in large scientific institutions, like medicine, and other areas of scientific expertise. Researchers don’t know why, yet speculate that the loss of faith is due to social media and the rising power of the internet (fake news), along with a minority of bad scientists muddying the waters for the public. Perhaps the reason why is because these authorities have become drunk on power and refuse to act with dignity despite the public outcry.

An authority is a person or organization that has the power to give orders, make decisions, and settle disputes. An authority presides over a jurisdiction, meaning such a body has power over something specifically defined, whether a region, aspect of society or subject matter. In this case, the researchers are medical scientists, who claim authority of expertise over medical phenomenon, their study, and what should be done about what is discovered, becoming medical policy.

Although the study doesn’t make clear what issues are specifically causing the lack of confidence, the rise in alternative medicine, health, and nutrition, which is undermining the authority of mainstream medicine, is likely the cause. Since mainstream science refuses to consider alternative science, completely ignoring the truth that people are managing their health through natural means, the public is losing confidence in these experts, I would assert.

Buy Book AIDS and Biological Warfare

What did the researchers cite as the reason for the loss of confidence?

Senior author of the paper, Janet Robishaw, Ph.D., said the “reason that the public has lost trust and confidence in science is multifaceted and complicated.”

But why?

Robishaw suggests “One of the main reasons is anecdotal stories, which can be very powerful, and are being given too much weight.”

An anecdote is a personal account or experience, often lacking third party verification or confirmation. For example, your dream experience last night is anecdotal because it can’t be proven or verified. Conversely, your claim that you worked eight hours yesterday can be verified by checking records and asking for corroborating witnesses from your job. Thus, verification is the difference. The more something can be verified and proven objectively the more likely it is to be considered true.

She goes on to say “There’s so much news coming out from so many sources including social media. That’s why it’s imperative for the public to discern an anecdote from scientific results in a peer-reviewed journal. This is how the premise that vaccinations cause autism evolved along with fabricated results that pushed the anti-vaccination movement.”

In other words, there are too many voices clamoring for attention, there are too many people claiming knowledge and no discussion between these people so as to arrive at some mutually agreed-upon truth.

In the past, medical experts didn’t have to compete with the general public. They enjoyed a monopoly on the discussion.

But this isn’t a true and valid claim to authority. The guy who screams the loudest, over all the other voices, isn’t necessarily the one that’s right. The fact medical authorities have to contend with a public that is brave enough to ask questions and dispute dubious medical facts is likely disconcerting, but necessary.

How does one discern?

Related 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools

Discernment is simple in principle, yet can be complicated to execute.

How do you know someone’s directions are correct? Because you tried them and they either worked or didn’t. The same is true for any claim, whether it comes from a person or mainstream medicine.

What the researchers mean by discernment here is likely not what was just outlined. That is, experts only want the public to “discern” that their authority is the only one to be believed. They substitute blind faith for discernment, but these are two very different things. Thus, they’re not actually asking for people to truly discern, which would require asking questions. What they want people to do is discard anecdotes in favor of medical opinion. Yet the researchers offer no justifiable reason why the public should trust them over a well-informed person, other than to say “The more we can do as scientists to promote our guiding principles of rigor, transparency, honesty and reproducibility and to provide the best evidence possible and get people to understand them, the greater the likelihood that they will listen to the message and follow it.”

A person trusts another because trust has been established. Yes, maintaining transparency, honesty, and reproducibility are important. But ultimately, if the public can’t understand what you’re saying, and you don’t take the time to teach them, trust can’t be maintained. And, if you refuse to listen to the public, as the medical system has been known to do, trust also can’t be maintained.

A basis of what makes a good trust-worthy authority should be considered.

Philosophy underpins this discussion because a claim to authority is itself supported by a claim of knowledge. For instance, who has the authority to decide how to get from one place to another? The person who’s walked that path already or who knows where they are going.

Thus, authority is, in a true sense, a reflection of wisdom. What makes one an authority is that they actually have true knowledge and know how to use it correctly, and, most importantly, that they respect the free will, opinions, and actually hear out other people. 

Buy Book How Do We Know?: An Introduction to Epistemology (The Philosophy of Discernment)

An authority is not decided through force or popular opinion.

Just because an authority can beat you over the head doesn’t mean their claims are true. Nor can an authority be trusted merely because everyone else does so blindly.

But this is effectively what the researchers imply, saying “it’s imperative for the public to discern an anecdote from scientific results in a peer-reviewed journal. This is how the premise that vaccinations cause autism evolved along with fabricated results that pushed the anti-vaccination movement.”

In other words, ‘we know the truth, and if you believe anything but what we say, you must be wrong, and spreading fake news.’ Granted, this is an exaggeration, but the syllogistic comparison cited as anecdotes being wrong and peer review being correct is quite clear.

The “premise that vaccinations cause autism evolved” because parents, resting on their anecdotal experience, keep seeing their children contract autism after being vaccinated. That’s what was proven and presented in the film VAXXED.

Watch Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe

Thus, what we’re seeing here is a disturbing implication on the part of some in the scientific community. Namely:

• We refuse to take the claims of parents seriously, parents who have first-hand knowledge and observation of what happened to their children after vaccination.
• We aren’t real scientists because a true scientist considers all claims of genuine phenomena (anecdotes) seriously, investigating them with honesty and integrity.

If you were a parent. Your child contracted autism after being vaccinated. You went to the doctor to report this, and they said you were crazy, vaccines are fine, and your child’s autism has nothing to do with it. Would you continue to trust them?

If thousands of parents had similar experiences and started sharing them publically via social media, would you not begin to question the expertise and authority of the medical institution?

And if this same medical institution marginalized all this, saying social media and fake news were the causes of loss of confidence, not actual breaches of trust on the part of medical researchers, would you not also lose faith?

Buy Book Censored Science: The Suppressed Evidence

As one who is passionate about the truth and using it to develop the wisdom that makes our lives better, I’m disappointed by the position of the researchers.

I hope that the public will continue to hold our scientific institutions accountable. For far too long the conversation has been onesided. But with the power of our voice, we can continue to take a stand and fight for the truth.

 – Justin

The preceding is a Stillness in the Storm original creation. Please share freely. 

About The Author

Justin Deschamps has been a truth seeker all his life, studying physics, psychology, law, philosophy, and spirituality, and working to weave these seemingly separate bodies of information into a holistic tapestry of ever expanding knowledge. Justin is a student of all and a teacher to some, sharing what he has discovered with those who are ready and willing to take responsibility for making the world a better place. The goal of his work is to help himself and others become better truth-seekers, and in doing so, form a community of holistically minded individuals capable of creating world healing projects for the benefit of all life—what has been called The Great Work. Check out his project Stillness in the Storm to find some of his work. Follow on Twitter @sitsshow, Facebook Stillness in the Storm, and minds.com.

Stillness in the Storm Editor: Why did we post this?

The preceding information reveals the corruption, malpractice and incompetence of mainstream medical institutions and food sources This information is important to comprehend so as to dispel any false trust you have with these institutions—which could cost you or your loved ones their life. That said, one should be intelligent with their health choices. We are not advocating for completely abandoning all modern medical services. We are simply encouraging you not to trust the system blindly. Be sure to ask plenty of questions, get second opinions, and do your own research as much as possible. We do not live in a world where one can blindly trust any government-dependent institution. With this hard truth firmly understood, one can begin the slow process of developing their own expertise insofar as health.

– Justin

Not sure how to make sense of this? Want to learn how to discern like a pro? Read this essential guide to discernment, analysis of claims, and understanding the truth in a world of deception: 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools.

---

Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Send an email to [email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.

Source:

https://neurosciencenews.com/social-fact-rejection-15091/

Featured Image