Newt Gingrich exemplifies just how unscientific America is
Ethan Siegel

People may feel the facts provided don’t reflect reality because many times, the facts we are given are not correct. Scientific studies and statistical reports have, unfortunately, become products for sale — for the right amount. Governments and large corporations can purchase reports that will show whatever results they would like.

Pharmaceuticals are a perfect example — the only people paying for studies are the same companies selling the products. Many scientists have had their careers ended for not going along with the official narrative. There is no longer money floating around to provide research that doesn’t generate a desired result. Scientists literally fear for their livelihood for not providing the proper results.

I’m not saying the crime statistics are not correct — they might be. Unfortunately, it only takes one or two examples of tainted studies exposed for people to begin distrusting all official studies — especially if the studies don’t reflect their own realities. If you live in Chicago, you may not believe, or even care, what a nationwide study says.

Fluoridation is an example of people with very legitimate concerns simply wanting the option to decide for themselves if they want to ingest another chemical. In this particular example, studies can be irrelevant to a critical thinker who wonders why, or how, ingesting a chemical could affect the enamel of their teeth. They might question why a tube of toothpaste has a warning to call poison control if accidental ingestion of a pea sized amount of the same chemical occurs.

It becomes more understandable why people begin to trust their feelings more than some studies when they are dismissed as conspiracy theorists for questioning something like fluoridation.

The scientific community might tell them fluoride is found naturally in water or the amount is so miniscule, it’s not dangerous rather than explain why other countries have stopped fluoridation over similar concerns, or why add more if it’s naturally occurring, or how do you control the amount people get if one person drinks a gallon of water a day and another only drinks coffee.

Feelings become an important factor when seeking the truth — Newt might spin studies to suit his argument but feelings should also keep people skeptical of official studies in a time where conflict of interest no longer has any meaning. Who commissioned the study? Are there conflicting studies? Who gains from the results of this study?

Don’t let anyone mislead you out of the truth.

In this day and age, it can be as foolish to passively accept the official narrative as to accept the feelings of a professional politician.