{"id":119742,"date":"2022-06-10T16:45:02","date_gmt":"2022-06-10T20:45:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=119742"},"modified":"2022-06-10T16:45:47","modified_gmt":"2022-06-10T20:45:47","slug":"why-trust-the-science-is-a-total-con","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=119742","title":{"rendered":"<h1>Why &#8216;Trust the Science&#8217; Is a Total Con<\/h1>"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1><strong>Scientism, Not Science, Rules the Roost<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p><!--more-->Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola<\/p>\n<div id=\"bcr_UpdPnlStory\">\n<div id=\"bcr_pnlStoryAtAGlance\" class=\"story-glance\" data-swiftype-name=\"saag\" data-swiftype-type=\"text\">\n<div class=\"story-highlights\">\n<h3 id=\"expanderHead\" data-jsid=\"expanderHead\">Story at-a-glance<\/h3>\n<div id=\"expanderContent\" data-jsid=\"expanderContent\">\n<ul>\n<li><span id=\"bcr_rptStory_cslStory_0\">As technocracy and transhumanism have risen to the fore, they have brought with them their own form of science \u2014 \u201cscientism\u201d \u2014 which is basically the religion of science. In other words, it\u2019s a belief even in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, and this is a very serious problem<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span id=\"bcr_rptStory_cslStory_1\">The clearest problem with the admonition to \u201cbelieve the science\u201d is that bona fide experts are found on all sides of any given empirical question<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span id=\"bcr_rptStory_cslStory_2\">The scientific priesthood is intolerant to new ideas while, simultaneously, search engines and digitization of scientific literature have eroded their authority as gatekeepers of knowledge<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span id=\"bcr_rptStory_cslStory_3\">The way things look right now, the gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood don\u2019t seem to have any intention to open its doors to outsiders and independent thinkers. If anything, they\u2019re trying to massively increase their control over the information we\u2019re allowed to see and share, even to the point of proposing the creation of certifying boards to police physicians\u2019 sharing of medical opinions<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span id=\"bcr_rptStory_cslStory_4\">The idea that a group of people can be the sole arbiters of \u201ctruth\u201d is irrational. Individual biases always creep in, and the greater the influence of such a group, the more ingrained and dogmatic those biases will become, until the system is corrupted to the core. One could argue that dogmatic faith in nonexistent scientific consensuses is the reason for why we are where we are today<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"bodytext\" class=\"bodytextdiv\" data-swiftype-name=\"postbody\" data-swiftype-type=\"text\">\n<p>Science has long been regarded as a stronghold of logic and reason. Scientists don\u2019t draw conclusions based on emotions, feelings or sheer faith. It\u2019s all about building a body of reproducible evidence. Well, that\u2019s what it used to be, but as technocracy and transhumanism have risen to the fore, it has brought with it its own form of science \u2014 \u201cscientism\u201d \u2014 which is basically the religion of science. Sheldon Richman with The Libertarian Institute writes:<sup><span id=\"edn1\" data-hash=\"#ednref1\">1<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>\u201cThe popular slogan today is \u2018Believe in science.\u2019 It\u2019s often used as a weapon against people who reject not science in principle but rather one or another prominent scientific proposition, whether it be about the COVID-19 vaccine, climate change &#8230; to mention a few\u00a0&#8230;<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>The clearest problem with the admonition to \u2018believe in science\u2019 is that &#8230; well-credentialed scientists \u2014 that is, bona fide experts \u2014 are found on both (or all) sides of a given empirical question &#8230; Moreover, no one, not even scientists, are immune from group-think and confirmation bias &#8230;<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>Apparently, under the believers\u2019 model of science, truth comes down from a secular Mount Sinai (Mount Science?) thanks to a set of anointed scientists, and those declarations are not to be questioned. The dissenters can be ignored because they are outside the elect. How did the elect achieve its exalted station? Often, but not always, it was through the political process &#8230;<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>But that\u2019s not science; it\u2019s religion, or at least it\u2019s the stereotype of religion that the \u2018science believers\u2019 oppose in the name of enlightenment. What it yields is dogma and, in effect, accusations of heresy. In real science, no elect and no Mount Science exists.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<div class=\"MidProductAd\"><\/div>\n<p><em>Real science is a rough-and-tumble process of hypothesizing, public testing, attempted replication, theory formation, dissent and rebuttal, refutation (perhaps), revision (perhaps), and confirmation (perhaps). It\u2019s an unending process, as it obviously must be &#8230;<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>The institutional power to declare matters settled by consensus opens the door to all kinds of mischief that violate the spirit of science and potentially harm the public financially and otherwise.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Technocracy News also added a comment<sup><span id=\"edn2\" data-hash=\"#ednref2\">2<\/span><\/sup> to Richman\u2019s article, noting that \u201cScientism is at the root of both <a href=\"https:\/\/takecontrol.substack.com\/p\/mind-of-a-technocrat?s=r\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">technocracy<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/takecontrol.substack.com\/p\/hackable-humans-transhumanism?s=r\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">transhumanism<\/a>, indicating that the revolution waged against the world is religious in nature.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Whether the war against humanity is truly underpinned by religion or not is open for debate and interpretation. But what is clear is that something has shifted science away from its conventional foundation into something that very much resembles religious faith. In other words, it\u2019s a belief even in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, and this is a very serious problem.<\/p>\n<h2>Scientific Gatekeeping as a Priesthood<\/h2>\n<p>In \u201cAgainst Scientific Gatekeeping,\u201d<sup><span id=\"edn3\" data-hash=\"#ednref3\">3<\/span><\/sup> published in the May 2022 issue of Reason magazine, Dr. Jeffrey Singer argues that \u201cscience should be a profession, not a priesthood.\u201d Indeed, yet that\u2019s basically what it has become. Singer starts out by reviewing the early discovery of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment against COVID-19, and the subsequent demonization of anyone who supported its off-label use.<\/p>\n<p>He then goes on to discuss the scientific priesthood\u2019s intolerance to new ideas while, simultaneously, \u201csearch engines and the digitization of scientific literature have forever eroded their authority as gatekeepers of knowledge.\u201d He writes:<sup><span id=\"edn4\" data-hash=\"#ednref4\">4<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>\u201cMost people prefer experts, of course, especially when it comes to health care &#8230; But a problem arises when some of those experts exert outsized influence over the opinions of other experts and thereby establish an orthodoxy enforced by a priesthood. If anyone, expert or otherwise, questions the orthodoxy, they commit heresy. The result is groupthink, which undermines the scientific process.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>The COVID-19 pandemic provided many examples. Most medical scientists, for instance, uncritically accepted the epidemiological pronouncements of government-affiliated physicians who were not epidemiologists. At the same time, they dismissed epidemiologists as \u2018fringe\u2019 when those specialists dared to question the conventional wisdom &#8230;<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>The deference to government-endorsed positions is probably related to funding &#8230; President Dwight Eisenhower &#8230; warned that \u2018we should be alert to the &#8230; danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific technological elite.\u2019 Today we face both problems &#8230;<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>It is easy to understand why the scientific priesthood views the democratization of health care opinions as a threat to its authority and influence. In response, medical experts typically wave the flag of credentialism: If you don&#8217;t have an M.D. or another relevant advanced degree, they suggest, you should shut up and do as you&#8217;re told.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>But credentials are not always proof of competence, and relying on them can lead to the automatic rejection of valuable insights &#8230; Scott Atlas, a former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford Medical School, has published and critically reviewed hundreds of medical research papers. He is a member of the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>Yet when Atlas commented on COVID-19 issues, the priesthood and its journalistic entourage derided him because he is \u2018not an infectious disease expert\u2019 \u2014 as if a 30-year career in academic medicine does not provide enough background to understand and analyze public health data. Why? Because this physician had the temerity to contradict the public health establishment.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"productad\"><\/div>\n<h2>The Need to Reassess Dogmatic Thinking<\/h2>\n<p>Singer reviews several other examples of bonafide experts who got thrown under the proverbial bus by the medical priesthood during the years of COVID, and highlights instances where we can now, rather conclusively, prove that public health officials made bad calls.<\/p>\n<p>Several studies have concluded that lockdowns had no beneficial impact on infection rates and COVID deaths, for example, while disproportionally harming the young and the poor. Yet no one has publicly admitted this strategy was an unwise one that should be permanently abandoned and never repeated.<\/p>\n<p>Many studies have also demonstrated that natural immunity is better than the COVID jab, yet no changes have been made to the official recommendation to inject everyone, whether COVID recovered or not.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>\u201cJust as public health officials must abandon a \u2018zero COVID\u2019 strategy and accept that the virus will be endemic, the science priesthood must adapt to a world where specialized knowledge has been democratized,\u201d<\/em> Singer writes.<sup><span id=\"edn5\" data-hash=\"#ednref5\">5<\/span><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>\u201cFor scientific knowledge to advance, scientists must reach a rapprochement with the uncredentialed. They must not dismiss lay hypotheses or observations out of hand. They must fight against the understandable desire to avoid any hypothesis that might upset the health bureaucrats who control billions of research grant dollars.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>It is always useful to challenge and reassess long-held premises and dogmas. People outside of a field might provide valuable perspectives that can be missed by those within it.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<h2>Effort to Muzzle Doctors Continues<\/h2>\n<p>The way things look right now, the gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood don\u2019t seem to have any intention to open its doors to outsiders and independent thinkers.<\/p>\n<p>If anything, they\u2019re trying to massively increase their control over the information we\u2019re allowed to see and share, even to the point of proposing the creation of private medical certifying boards to police physicians\u2019 sharing of medical opinions online and elsewhere. In a May 31, 2022, Substack article, independent medical journalist Paul Thacker writes:<sup><span id=\"edn6\" data-hash=\"#ednref6\">6<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>\u201cThis of course, is laughable. We have plenty of evidence that medical boards are incapable of regulating physician behavior simply by looking at the history of drug scandals in America, none of which could have occurred without the complicity of corrupt doctors \u2014 few if any of whom were later sanctioned by their own profession.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>Anyone notice a medical board going after Duke University\u2019s Dr. Ralph Snyderman for aiding the Sacklers\u2019 opioid scheme and helping spread disinformation that these highly addictive drugs are NOT &#8230; highly addictive?<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>Of course not. Snyderman built up Duke University into the 3rd most prestigious medical school in the States. Despite spreading disinformation about opioids that killed tens of thousands of Americans, he&#8217;s obviously a great doctor &#8230;<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>Oddly enough, one of the most prolific tweeters on COVID-19 vaccines is Baylor University\u2019s Dr. Peter Hotez. And while Hotez has spread disinformation about vaccines \u2014 in one example, stating that vaccines mandates were never going to happen and were just a dog whistle by anti-vaccine groups \u2014 don\u2019t expect any state medical board to come after him.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><em>The reality is that, during the pandemic, the medical profession has become cheerleaders for vaccines, not skeptics. So when a couple MDs write an essay in the NEJM saying we need to confront COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, you automatically know they don\u2019t mean someone like Hotez who has tweeted vaccine misinformation, but who has also religiously promoted COVID-19 vaccines.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Thacker goes on to detail the history of Dr. Edward Michna, who has spent a large portion of his career promoting and defending the use of opioids for several different drug companies. He\u2019s also conducted several pain trials involving opioids, and despite having received many tens of thousands of dollars from opioid makers, he didn\u2019t disclose those competing interests.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>\u201cIn coming months, documents will be released, further explaining what the opioid manufacturers did. But nothing \u2026 NOTHING will happen to Dr. Edward Michna for defending these companies,\u201d<\/em> Thacker writes.<sup><span id=\"edn7\" data-hash=\"#ednref7\">7<\/span><\/sup> <em>\u201cThat\u2019s why nobody should believe &#8230; the idea that doctors can regulate doctors. Doctors have had forever to do this, and they continually fail.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<h2>Without Free Discourse, Science Dies<\/h2>\n<p>It seems the moral of all these stories is that without free discourse, science cannot flourish and falsehoods become harder to weed out. Free speech is a requirement for any well-functioning system, whether we\u2019re talking about politics, medicine, science or anything else.<\/p>\n<aside class=\"takeaway tamiddle\">One could argue that dogmatic faith in nonexistent scientific consensuses is the reason for why we are where we are today. Gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood have already allowed science to be corrupted to the point its barely recognizable. The answer, then, is not more of the same, but less.<\/aside>\n<p>The idea that a group of people, no matter how well-intended, can be the sole arbiters of \u201ctruth\u201d is irrational on its face, because who among us can claim to know all there is to know? Individual biases always creep in, and the greater the influence of such a group, the more ingrained and dogmatic those biases will become, until the system is corrupted to the core.<\/p>\n<p>One could argue that dogmatic faith in nonexistent scientific consensuses is the reason for why we are where we are today. Gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood have already allowed science to be corrupted to the point its barely recognizable. The answer, then, is not more of the same, but less. We need less censorship and more open-minded sharing of viewpoints, opinions and interpretations.<\/p>\n<p>And when it comes to creating medical boards to police medical \u201cmisinformation\u201d shared by doctors, we already know how that would work out. While Thacker doesn\u2019t mention this, many doctors have been targeted by various professional boards, including state medical boards, for publicly opposing COVID measures such as mask and COVID shot mandates. I discussed this in \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/takecontrol.substack.com\/p\/doctors-for-questioning-mandatory-masking?s=w\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Medical Boards Hunting Down Doctors Over Mask Mandates<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2>Transforming the Health Care System<\/h2>\n<p>In his book, \u201cCurable: How an Unlikely Group of Radical Innovators Is Trying to Transform Our Health Care System,\u201d Travis Christofferson addresses questions such as: \u201cWhat has happened to American health care?\u201d and \u201cWhat are the foundational disruptions or corruptions in the system?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>His book, in some ways, is based on the theory promoted in Michael Lewis\u2019 book and subsequent film, \u201cMoneyball.\u201d It describes how you can use statistics to massively improve a flawed system.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cMoneyball\u201d showed how, within a simple game of baseball, you can have massive inefficiencies, and by taking away the human biases and just applying statistics to find what is undervalued, you can massively boost the performance of a team.<\/p>\n<p>When I <a href=\"https:\/\/takecontrol.substack.com\/p\/radical-innovators-trying-transform-health-care?s=w\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">interviewed Christofferson<\/a> about his book, he offered several examples of how statistics and removal of human biases can be used in the same way to improve inefficiencies within the medical system. For example, the diabetic drug metformin has \u201cmassive repositories of data\u201d suggesting it can be useful against a plethora of chronic diseases, including cancer, and it\u2019s extremely affordable.<\/p>\n<p>The reason it\u2019s rarely prescribed for any of these other indications is because there\u2019s a financial motivation to capitalize on more expensive treatments, even if they don\u2019t work well. By focusing on undervalued treatments and low-cost prevention, health care costs could be driven way down, while simultaneously improving patient outcomes.<\/p>\n<p>Another example comes from Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania. By introducing a Fresh Food Farmacy for Type 2 diabetics, Geisinger Health was able to reduce its per-year outlays and cost for Type 2 diabetics by a whopping 80%. Patients with prediabetes or Type 2 diabetes are given a prescription for fresh, whole foods, and allowed two free meals a day from the Farmacy, along with intensive care and educational support.<\/p>\n<p>A third example is Intermountain Health. In addition to paying its doctors a fixed salary plus bonuses based on patients\u2019 health outcomes, they also assess differences between treatments to see which works best.<\/p>\n<p>For example, patients are always given antibiotics before surgery, but it\u2019s never been established when the optimal time to administer the drugs is. Intermountain compared medical records, finding the optimal time was two hours before surgery, which cut their surgical infection rate by more than half.<\/p>\n<h2>Bias Corrupts and Corruption Is Inherently Destructive<\/h2>\n<p>These are all examples of how we can effectively and efficiently move medicine forward. By silencing debate and discussion, and by ignoring data and statistics, which has become the norm in this COVID era, the conventional health care system is headed for collapse.<\/p>\n<p>This seems particularly true when you consider hospitals have, over the past two years, completely shredded patients\u2019 trust by mistreating and outright killing COVID-19 patients with the most dangerous treatments available. Rather than collaborating with peers, most doctors have blindly followed financially-driven and politically biased protocols handed down from the reigning \u201cpriesthood,\u201d and the results have been nothing short of disastrous.<\/p>\n<p>Speaking of disastrous, California has introduced a bill<sup><span id=\"edn8\" data-hash=\"#ednref8\">8<\/span><\/sup> that will strip doctors of their medical licenses if they express medical views that the state does not agree with, basically reducing medicine to a state-sanctioned one-size-fits-all endeavor. Absolutely nothing good can come of such a plan. I discussed this in \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/takecontrol.substack.com\/p\/doctors-hunted-by-pharma?s=w\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Bill Seeks to Muzzle Doctors Who Tell the Truth About COVID<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>This bill, AB-2098, was passed by House vote (53 to 20), May 26, 2022, and is currently in the Senate.<sup><span id=\"edn9\" data-hash=\"#ednref9\">9<\/span><\/sup> If this law is passed in California, we will probably begin to see similar or identical bills introduced in other states as well.<\/p>\n<p>If your trust in doctors has already waned, implementation of such a law is sure to carpet bomb whatever trust is left into oblivion, because all you\u2019ll be able to get, no matter who you go to, is the state-sponsored opinion. What happens then? How do we care for our health if our doctors are legally prevented from giving us their best advice? This is such a radical departure from sanity and sound practice that it\u2019s hard to even imagine what medicine will look like at that point.<\/p>\n<p>The answer, I believe, will be for good, caring medical professionals to start building parallel health care systems, such as those detailed in Christofferson\u2019s book, \u201cCurable.\u201d We may also have to take on greater responsibility for finding solutions to our own health problems. \u201cTake control of your health\u201d has been my motto and tagline since I started this website, but it\u2019s more important now than ever.<\/p>\n<p>In years past, one of the greatest risks a patient faced was a doctor lacking nutritional know-how. In the future, the greatest risk could be doctors outright lying to you, even to the point of sending you to a more or less certain death, just to stay in practice. I hope it won\u2019t come to that. But prevent it, we must resist and oppose these kinds of treacherous plots wherever and whenever they crop up.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"bcr_divfootnote\" class=\"sources-references narrow-width\">\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"heading\" class=\"title link16\" data-jsid=\"sourcesReferencesBtn\">&#8211; Sources and References<\/h3>\n<div id=\"contentrefsources\" class=\"contentrefsources\" data-jsid=\"sourcesReferences\">\n<div class=\"sources sourcesfoot\"><\/div>\n<div id=\"bcr_divReferences\" class=\"references\">\n<ul id=\"footnote-references2\">\n<li><sup><span id=\"ednref1\" data-hash=\"#edn1\"><span id=\"lblReferenceNo\">1<\/span><\/span><\/sup>\u00a0<a id=\"lnkReference\" href=\"https:\/\/libertarianinstitute.org\/articles\/sheldon\/tgif-how-science-becomes-religion\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Libertarian Institute July 30, 2021<\/a><\/li>\n<li><sup><span id=\"ednref2\" data-hash=\"#edn2\"><span id=\"lblReferenceNo\">2<\/span><\/span><\/sup>\u00a0<a id=\"lnkReference\" href=\"https:\/\/www.technocracy.news\/scientism-when-science-becomes-religion\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Technocracy News August 2, 2021<\/a><\/li>\n<li><sup><span id=\"ednref3\" data-hash=\"#edn3\"><span id=\"lblReferenceNo\">3,<\/span><\/span><\/sup>\u00a0<sup><span id=\"ednref4\" data-hash=\"#edn4\"><span id=\"lblReferenceNo\">4,<\/span><\/span><\/sup>\u00a0<sup><span id=\"ednref5\" data-hash=\"#edn5\"><span id=\"lblReferenceNo\">5<\/span><\/span><\/sup>\u00a0<a id=\"lnkReference\" href=\"https:\/\/reason.com\/2022\/04\/03\/against-scientific-gatekeeping\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Reason May 2022<\/a><\/li>\n<li><sup><span id=\"ednref6\" data-hash=\"#edn6\"><span id=\"lblReferenceNo\">6,<\/span><\/span><\/sup>\u00a0<sup><span id=\"ednref7\" data-hash=\"#edn7\"><span id=\"lblReferenceNo\">7<\/span><\/span><\/sup>\u00a0<a id=\"lnkReference\" href=\"https:\/\/disinformationchronicle.substack.com\/p\/the-answer-to-physician-misinformation?s=r\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Disinformation Chronicle Substack May 31, 2022<\/a><\/li>\n<li><sup><span id=\"ednref8\" data-hash=\"#edn8\"><span id=\"lblReferenceNo\">8<\/span><\/span><\/sup>\u00a0<a id=\"lnkReference\" href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2098\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California Assembly Bill AB-2098<\/a><\/li>\n<li><sup><span id=\"ednref9\" data-hash=\"#edn9\"><span id=\"lblReferenceNo\">9<\/span><\/span><\/sup>\u00a0<a id=\"lnkReference\" href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2098\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California Assembly Bill AB-2098, History<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>___<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/articles.mercola.com\/sites\/articles\/archive\/2022\/06\/09\/scientism.aspx?ui=7d4f35cff736f077b2ae4301813d0195449985379d483f57b37156f601517996&amp;sd=20190616&amp;cid_source=dnl&amp;cid_medium=email&amp;cid_content=art1HL&amp;cid=20220609&amp;mid=DM1186806&amp;rid=1515113121\">https:\/\/articles.mercola.com\/sites\/articles\/archive\/2022\/06\/09\/scientism.aspx?ui=7d4f35cff736f077b2ae4301813d0195449985379d483f57b37156f601517996&amp;sd=20190616&amp;cid_source=dnl&amp;cid_medium=email&amp;cid_content=art1HL&amp;cid=20220609&amp;mid=DM1186806&amp;rid=1515113121<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Scientism, Not Science, Rules the Roost<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119742","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119742","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=119742"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119742\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=119742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=119742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=119742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}