Many people are seeing that the phrase "Trust the Science" just means to trust the people who are paying for the "research".
Like: "The VAXXX is reliable and effective. They have been extensively tested. Trust the Science"
When the VAXXX was shown to have serious side effects that BigPharma knew about before pushing it on the public. They had to redefine Vaccine in order to call the VAXXX one. Further, BigPharma had to ignore so much of what was published on virology to say that it would work.
The VAXXX was not effective or reliable, unless they meant that it reliably messed up people's bodies it was injected into.
Fraudchi and BigPharma lied about their findings, which is not the way science is supposed to be done. And then pushed away all opposition with "Trust the Science".
The problem is that BigPharma didn't start this. It started in the ivory towers of university.
Failing to follow the scientific method
Any number of supporting tests does not prove a theory.
And one negative test disproves a theory.
That is the way it is supposed to go, but not in academia! Oh no, the well known theories that all the rest of science is based upon must NEVER be disproven.
Basically, everything in the Modern Science Text Book is disproven. The complete thing. Every theory has been disproven.
Sure, each of the basic physics works, but the reason is not as described.
- Michelson-Morley experiment, barely an experiment, did not disprove the aether. They found something, and then, they called it nothing.
- Einstein's theory of relativity had the flimsiest evidence, and is disproven because the speed of light is not constant.
- Cavendish experiment to find the gravitational constant of mass, can't be done as described. The electric force, no matter how minute, is much greater than the force of gravity.
- Electron movement cannot explain electric flow. (which is one reason we are having trouble with understanding super conductors)
- There isn't enough gravity, in the gravity model to explain galaxies. So, dark matter was invented to make up for that. Still, it doesn't explain how galaxies spin as one unit, like every star was glued to a plate.
- Friction is supposed to be everywhere. The faster something goes, the more friction. However, there are ways to build pipes where the water flows faster and faster, like negative friction. Spin is very important, and just ignored.
- The laws of thermodynamics say there is not supposed to be any over unity machines. But there are. Even the lowly steam engine can be tuned to be over unity.
If you talk to any physics professor, they will tell you that all these bullet points are adequately explained away. Or, that there is no proof of any disproofs. If there were, than it would be all over the science forums, articles and papers.
However, when you look deeply, you find that the disproofs are all there in the footnotes or in the appendixes, or in old physics text books.
Did you know that a hundred scientists got together and wrote a book about how Einstein and the theory of relativity was wrong? Have you ever heard of this book?
9 out of 10 scientists agree with those that fund them
Science experiments are done by those with funding. (no funding, no ability to do experiments)
And funding comes from corporations that want a return on their investment. (so, the scientists work to prove what the funding source wants)
The funding comes as a grant, and the grant states what is to be studied. (usually the grant's question is phrased in such a way that the scientists either prove what the grant funder wanted, or the results are inconclusive. Sometimes so blatant as "Assuming A, prove A")
So, scientists are in an environment where they really can't do science. And if a scientists gets out of bounds, and goes against any of the sacred texts, their funding will disappear, as if it never existed.
They say it is hard to get rid of a tenured professor, however if they start talking/studying/researching in areas that are not "approved" (and this is nebulous, never really discussed) they will find themselves on leave, or moved to a tiny office with no lab, or have the rest of their tenure to be in some backwater facility that hasn't heard of things like electricity…
And, in these ways, scientists are kept in the plantation, and never actually do science.
So, when you hear something like "90% of scientists agree" just assume whatever comes after that to be, "with their funding source"
The people who have broken free of this trap. And have gone to really explore science on their own, all say something like, "The last 100 years of science is a complete waste", or we have done nothing in the last 100 years.
Imagine that there is a really old science text book that is cutting edge. So good, so dense, that most people can't read and digest it. That is, if they get past their scientific indoctrination to not believe what is true. Such a book exists.
A hundred years ago, in the time of Nikola Tesla, many scientists were working on the Luminiferous Aether. And finding out all kinds of interesting properties about it. We were on the brink of all kinds of inventions.
Edison worked really hard to find a manufacturable light bulb. Tesla, made air glow in a bulb.
Nikola Tesla Image from internet archive
(Yes, this photo was staged, and it had to be because an actual light would have blown out the photo.)
However, imagine where we would be if Tesla was allowed to do more than introduce an AC motor? We would have light bulbs that never burned out, because they weren't burning. And many other things. Some that were seen briefly, others that never saw the light of day.
Scientists 100 years ago believed in an entirely different world, than the scientists of today. And it was not that they were wrong, and that we are more advanced today, it is because a group of rich men decided to close the lid on scientific advancement.