The following remarks highlight a worrying trend in contemporary medical research and public perception.

As Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, notes, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, echoes this sentiment, stating, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

Mark Twain’s famous quip, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics,” might be updated today to include scientific studies. The approval of Vioxx, which ultimately caused the deaths of over 60,000 individuals despite being deemed safe, exemplifies this perilous trend.

Understanding Science

Science should be viewed as a method, a tool that reflects the skill of its user. Like any tool, it can be misused. Every scientific inquiry begins with a hypothesis, which is then tested. A change in the hypothesis or testing parameters can yield significantly different results, all of which can still be scientifically valid. However, the insights gained are contingent upon the initial assumptions that guide the research.

A Thought Experiment

Consider a physicist in the early 20th century relying solely on Newtonian principles. This researcher would design experiments based on established laws, overlooking the potential for relativity or quantum mechanics. Without a new theoretical framework, they would conclude that Newtonian physics is definitive—until new ideas emerge.

While real science encourages challenging existing theories, the initial thought experiment emphasizes a crucial point: scientific conclusions are always provisional. Carl Sagan famously stated, “The sacred truth of science is that there are no sacred truths,” underscoring that science cannot claim absolute proof.

Even if countless experiments support Newton’s laws, this does not eliminate the chance that these laws could be disproven under certain unknown conditions, which is precisely what occurred with the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics.

The Falsifiability Criterion

An illustrative example involves the statement “all swans are white.” The existence of a single black swan would invalidate this claim. Philosopher Karl Popper emphasized that a scientific assertion must be falsifiable; if it cannot be tested against reality, it falls into the realm of pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience vs. Science

The distinction between scientific claims and religious dogma is significant. Religious beliefs are generally unfalsifiable, meaning they cannot be disproven by observation. Meanwhile, within science, the inability to falsify a theory leads to the classification of that theory as pseudoscience.

Vaccines and Public Discourse

When the claim is made that “vaccines are safe and effective,” the implication is that “the benefits outweigh the risks.” This assertion is rarely challenged in mainstream media or public discussions. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon actively censor information labeled as “anti-vax.” Parents who report adverse reactions in their children often face ridicule or dismissal, reminiscent of societal attitudes towards other marginalized voices.

Despite its potential for falsification, the claim “vaccines are safe and effective” is treated as unquestionable in public dialogue, thus rendering it pseudoscientific.

The Autism Debate

The assertion that “there is no link between vaccines and autism” faces challenges, particularly in light of cases like Hannah Poling, where the National Vaccine Injury Court recognized a causal link between vaccines and autism. This example contradicts the sweeping claim that no such connection exists.

The Settled Science Fallacy

The phrase “the science is settled” is misleading. True science is characterized by ongoing inquiry and skepticism. The assertion of finality in scientific understanding leads to the conflation of scientific claims with pseudoscience, akin to dogmatic beliefs.

Contemporary Implications

Imagine a scenario in which industries profit from established scientific theories and claim that their products are infallibly safe. This scenario mirrors the current landscape surrounding vaccines, where claims about their safety and efficacy are treated as unquestionable truths.

In summary, the dogmas surrounding vaccines—namely, that they are safe and effective, that there is no association with autism, and that the science is settled—are emblematic of pseudoscience. This reliance on pseudoscientific claims shapes public health policy, raising the critical question: why do we accept pseudoscience as legitimate science?