How do we decide what is true and what is not true?
I want, like all level-minded parents and folks in general, to do what’s best for myself and my family. I want to avoid harm and aim for health. I want to live pain-free and with lots of energy and zest for life. I want to make good decisions that lead to health and vitality. These kinds of decisions aren’t always easy to make because there are usually alternative points of view to any claim and one must do the hard work of getting to a larger perspective to sift out the kernels of truth. But in today’s political divide which has coopted science to prove “truth”, finding the truth is all more difficult and elusive. Combined with today’s academic foolishness of teaching children that there is no objective truth, that everything is only our subjective perception, our children are in for a very difficult time as they move forward in their confusion. Gender, for example, is a social construct, not a biological fact, in these days, yet climate change, vaccinations, and many other issues are “settled”, so they say because of science. Good luck kids.
Let me say at the onset, whenever I hear “the science is settled” or “the science is conclusive”, etc., I raise my eyebrows and question why anyone would use that argument to support their opinion. Science is never settled. Most especially with issues which are controversial. Settled science is an oxymoron. It is also dogma. And, there is at the same time an objective reality. We live on this Earth, that is objectively true, among many other objective truths.
Yet, if we prohibit doubters from doing their work because the science is settled, we have doomed ourselves to a self-induced death from blindness. If no one wants to challenge the science because all agree on it, that is another story; but if one wants to challenge any idea, one ought to have the freedom to challenge, ask, inquiry, discuss, and not feel ostracized ion the process. It isn’t surprising that no one wants to challenge the idea that humans must have food in order to survive and thrive in a long life. That isn’t controversial today. However, that doesn’t mean that the idea is true, it simply means no one wants to, or feels a need to challenge the idea. Perhaps one day we will learn that humans can live a long and vital life without food. Who knows? Seems preposterous now, but so did many ideas before their time.
Secondly, regarding science, there have been overwhelming incidents of fake, faulty, and corrupted science getting published in the top scientific journals of the world. I remind my readers I often purposely do not point to sources of my opinions because they are too easy to find and just like when I am teaching, I want my students to do the research. If one really cares to know, one will do the work. Trust that I would not write anything that I have not researched and studied. For me, this I know. We each must do the work. That doesn’t mean I am right or anyone else who actually does the hard work of investigation and research.
So, who do we believe? If we cannot blindly rely on the scientific journals, how do we get to the truth? We know the government, and the myriad of government agencies, have lied to us many, many times, and often about atrocities. Again, no blind faith there either. What I am saying is that even if we turn to the scientific journals or the government for answers, we must use caution and be wary of the ineptitude that they have previously shown. We must discriminate. I know that is a bad word these days, unfortunately, because we all differentiate/discriminate all the time, every day, and for very good and useful reasons. To not discriminate is to be a fool. That sounds harsh but simply change out the synonym: to not differentiate is to be a fool. That’s better, right?
There are many issues today that have highly credible people supporting two diverging and contradicting ideas. Either way we look, there are just as credible experts and scholars. Either way we look there are strong arguments made for their conclusions. So just how do we get to the truth. For as it has been said, and it is certainly reasonable to think, the truth will set us free. Going back to my original statement that I want to do what’s best for my family, only the truth can set me free. If I believe untruths, I delude myself into a reality that may irrevocably harm me or my family. For example, if I ignore the knowledge we have about epigenetics and think genetics are solely responsible for disease (untruth), I put myself and my family in peril.
One thing I know for sure, to get to the truth I must look at each side of the argument/debate with equal scrutiny and give each side a fair and reasonable chance to persuade me. If I stay on one side, and only look at that, never giving the other side a chance, I am being biased, prejudiced and discriminatory. However, if I differentiate, use my discretion and discriminate between what is sound and what is baseless, or less sound, I have a better chance at arriving to the truth, or at least closer to the sometimes very elusive truth. With the enormous amounts of echo chambers out there today, one must be wary of every media source, every book, every scientific study, every governmental statement, and every source one turns to. Why? Because everyone of those places we turn to for information has been shown to be biased. This ought to be common sense. We should never believe anyone or any source as accurate and noble one-hundred percent of the time. Again, we must discriminate and use our reasoning.
I will provide two examples of what this looks like today. There are so many more issues to look at but these two will demonstrate my point without making this longer than necessary. The fact that you’ve read this much of this post already puts you in the minority of people that actually read today.
I have been, for a long time now, looking into dentistry and trying to find answers about oral health for me and my family. Of course, one controversy still exists although the practice is rapidly being pushed out: mercury amalgams. That one was decided by me over two decades ago and I had my mercury fillings removed from my mouth that were installed in my youth. Sometimes common sense intervenes in a most delicious way and points toward easier answers. I know that is not a scientific idea but where did all scientific ideas originate? Common sense. Since the beginning of human’s ability to reason, common sense led to questions which led to looking for answers, experimentation, and finally the scientific method which is still in its infancy. Along with the literature I had read, I deduced that putting one of the most toxic metals for humans into my mouth, so close to my brain, is not a good idea. I decided it better not to take the risk. I know many said the mercury is safe and does not get into the body or bloodstream, it stays put in the tooth. But others said it leeches out very slowly, like leeching does (thing BPA), over decades, and finally rots brain tissue. Common sense told me this might be true. Hence, I decided not to take the chance. As for the truth? I don’t know.
As for fillings themselves, here is a study from University of Sydney, Australia, that says tooth decay (dental caries) can be stopped, reversed, and prevented without the need for the traditional ‘fill and drill’ approach that has dominated dental care for decades”. Again, I do not know, but if this is true, we ought to know this as parents. Of course, we all know that prevention is best, but when children do get cavities, we should know that drill and fill is not the only option.
But my issue here is not mercury fillings but root canals. I have been reading about root canals and other dental procedures for a long time now and there is controversy about the validity and harmful effects of root canals. When I watched accredited doctors and dentists making claims that root canals harbor infections in the body because the procedure leaves dead tissue in the body, that made sense to me. I’m not saying it is true, I am saying it made sense to me. We typically cut off and cut out dead tissues in our body for that reason, they harbor bacterial infections. And when that said documentary started getting the biased and prejudiced treatment, I knew something was up. Netflix removed Root Cause from its shelves because of the pressures it received. But fortunately you can still purchase the movie on Amazon or watch it on Vimeo.
Again, I don’t know if it’s true, but I do find it suspect that root canals may cause unforeseen damage to the body. The testimony of the doctors and their experiences seem probable, but that does not make it true. But what it does do is raise important questions that need more research. Unfortunately, that will be highly unlikely because today, the most educated and respected experts are into factions instead of questions. Why ALL cannot agree that the issue should be looked into and studied further, with a partnership of cooperation to get to the truth, is beyond the pale of science, of scholarship, and of commons sense. Even our brightest are stuck in dogma today. If what these doctors are saying is true, it is incredibly important for the people to know this. If it is not true, it is just as incredibly important for the people to know. But censorship is dogmatic and leads to delusion and misinformation.
The other issue that is so controversial and everyone who watches any kind of news knows about is vaccinations. And the biases and prejudices are clearer than ever. The science is settled argument, like with climate change, is on full throttle here. But does that make it correct? Whenever we want to silence an argument there is fear of it. Why else would one want to silence it? If it is ridiculous and plainly wrong, why would anyone fear it? Here is another example that there is so very little faith in humans today to reason for themselves and make decisions for themselves. We must rely on experts and government to tell us what to do. But remember the corruption of these experts and governments? Why would anyone blindly believe in these sources? And just because one reads what they say, one cannot say that they now know the truth. Unless and until one reads both sides of the issue, and gives both sides an equal and fair share of research and open minded scrutiny, one cannot say they know anything except what they read and hear in their echo chamber. As with many issues, my common sense lead me to my own answers, be they right or wrong.
Here is an example of the science not being quite as settled as is often portended. Look at this paper’s further reaches into what happened in California recently. “During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees (3). Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences (R. J. McNall, unpublished data)”. The main-stream media generally won’t cover this because it shatters the official word they propagate. The media is paid big bucks by the vaccine makers and so do not do real journalism but do the bidding of their corporate advertisers. It’s a shame and a sham. Recently Rockland County New York has issued public health policy that invades a person’s right to medical freedom.
Common sense tells me there has to be effects of harm to injecting my body with horrific poisons in the name of health. That in itself is not a good reason not to vaccinate. Common sense also tells me that back in my childhood we did not have anywhere near the vaccine schedule we have today. It was believed, and is true, that once one went through the disease, one was immune for life. Hmmm? So common sense may say that unless a disease is highly fatal, perhaps just getting the disease and gaining the lifelong immunity may make more sense than suffering from the harmful effects of putting poison in the body. A doctor with doctoral training from Rockefeller University actually showed scientifically that if no one was immunized for measles the “herd immunity” would be stronger than if everyone was immunized because of the lifelong immunity we’d all get from getting the measles. One can find others refuting her claims, so again be sure to look at both sides and decide for yourself.
Here again the vaccine industry of doctors and government officials told us mercury in the vaccines are safe. Yet here again, the practice, we have been told by the government, has been shut down since 2001. Truth is it’s not, just look at certain flu “shots” (vaccines) that still contain thimerosal, right on the same page that says thimerosal is safe and yet has been taken out of childhood vaccines since 2001. That kind of logic is beyond me: vaccine thimerosal is safe – but we have discontinued their use in vaccines – but some vaccines still contain thimerosal. Take a look and see for yourself. If you figure out the logic let me know.
In any case, one book this year, really opened up so many questions for me. How to End the Autism Epidemic was a powerful argument about vaccines and autism. I know, the science has been settled, I just today read another article about a study that put that issue to rest, but I ask my readers to read this book and then show me what is wrong with his argument and his sources. I have heard both sides, support of the book and other claims it is pseudo-science, from my associates and friends who I’ve discussed this book with. I don’t know the truth and I am not an expert on these matters. But when such highly credentialed doctors and experts disagree, I have to wonder. I have to question, I have to really look into the debated sides of the issue. So much makes sense to me in this book. Yes, there it is again, common sense. Just like it makes no sense to me that our water should be fluoridated with poison, as many countries outlaw this common practice of the U.S. Common sense is not ignorance. Remember that our common sense brings along all of our experience, our knowledge, and our reasoning.
What I’d like more than anything is to have good discussions with people about these issues. That generally turns up to be a dead end.
My experience shows me that most people, and most especially those whose lives depend on these issues, will not engage in debate. Here is an example of Yale professors who agreed to debate Robert Kennedy Jr. on vaccine safety just not showing up. They just did not show up. I understand that if your livelihood depends on the status quo, which would be upended if the other side of the argument were shown to be true, you would have to have more respect for truth and nobility than money and career. But too often we say nothing (only later to claim we are victims, once the truth comes out), out of our own common sense – better to have stability than risk it all. But where does this lead? What are the future consequences? And is there any value in taking the higher road toward truth rather than the lower road of keeping the status quo, even if wrong, in order to maintain one’s lifestyle?
The shutting down of open discussions along with the inability of people to converse about controversial issues in a polite and constructive fashion is seriously eroding the intellectual vigor of our society. Here is a study that linked behavioral modifications to vaccine aluminum injected into sheep. Oh, did you notice it isn’t there? It was withdrawn? Well here you can read more about it and think/decide for yourself. Further, you can see here the experts rally back at the corruption.
We need to be open to debate, open to admit we were wrong, open to change, open to learn and listen in order to traverse the trajectory of truth, if we want to be free. Otherwise we will be ruled by tyranny and dogma. And we know how that turns out. Already our children are closed minded about many of these issues because they get the mass schooling propaganda paid for by the powers that be. I see it all the time in my classes with my students.