One fundamental principle that profoundly influences modern policymaking is the acknowledgment of error and uncertainty. This principle is particularly relevant when examining the hypothetical models that have become central to crucial decision-making. These models, used extensively in climate science and public health, assume conclusions that align with their built-in premises. Nearly all climharmate change studies, for example, are based on intricate models that claim to reveal clear predictions—yet, upon close examination, they merely confirm their own assumptions. The deeper one investigates these models, the more astonishing it is that they have been accepted and published as authoritative sources.

Consider an everyday analogy:

“Honey, can you take out the trash?”

“Not right now. I’m working on a model that proves it’s entirely unnecessary. My model further indicates that the trash will never need to be taken out again, given my assumptions. It’s science.”

This satirical exchange illustrates the flawed logic behind many modern models—they dictate outcomes based on internal presumptions rather than objective observation. This same modeling approach was instrumental in shaping the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The world was urged to “flatten the curve” based on predictive models, which conveniently assumed the very conclusions they claimed to reveal. Instead of challenging the obvious flaws in these projections, most science reporters treated those behind the models as prophetic figures, akin to modern-day Nostradamus.

This was merely the beginning of a tidal wave of misinformation and manipulation that persisted for years.

The Manipulation of Vaccine Trials

Recent reexaminations of the standards governing the initial trials for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines reveal alarming inconsistencies. These trials were heralded as randomized and placebo-controlled, a designation meant to silence any further scrutiny. However, even when focusing solely on their effectiveness—separate from concerns about safety—there are startling instances of manipulation that warrant close examination.

• Limited Duration of Trials: The vaccine trials lasted just long enough (2–4 months) to document an immediate immune response, but not long enough to capture the inevitable decline in efficacy. By the fifth month, effectiveness waned significantly, yet the trials were structured in a way that concealed this reality. Manufacturers were likely aware of this issue but proceeded regardless. Once widespread skepticism arose, they conveniently introduced booster shots as a solution—another product ready for sale.
• Selective Definition of Full Vaccination: The trials defined individuals as “fully vaccinated” only two weeks after receiving their second dose—precisely at the peak of immune response—while disregarding any data beyond this window. This deliberate framing ensured results that looked successful on paper but failed to align with real-world effectiveness.
• Skewed Sample Populations: The trials appeared designed to limit participation from individuals most vulnerable to severe consequences of infection. Conversely, they included a disproportionate number of non-vulnerable participants, thereby skewing results in favor of favorable conclusions.
• Misleading Claims About Hospitalization and Death Prevention: Effectiveness against hospitalization and death was based on studies that involved an extremely small number of unvaccinated participants. In some trials, only ten unvaccinated individuals were hospitalized—an absurdly small sample size that was nonetheless used to justify sweeping claims of efficacy.
• Exclusion of Asymptomatic Infections: The trials intentionally ignored asymptomatic infections, meaning they did not evaluate transmission at all. This omission erased concerns about whether vaccinated individuals could still spread the virus. When real-world data exposed this gap, vaccine promoters feigned surprise and disbelief.
• Removal of Control Groups: Many trials unblinded placebo groups as early as December 2020, offering vaccines to participants and eliminating any chance of long-term comparative analysis. This decision effectively dismantled one of the most valuable components of a rigorous study—likely in an attempt to prevent unfavorable results from coming to light.
• Failure to Address Viral Mutations: The vaccine trials focused solely on the original wild-type strain of the virus. However, given the rapid mutation rate of coronaviruses, the strain was already evolving by the time vaccines were widely available. This oversight was clearly intentional rather than accidental.

Throughout this period, numerous experts published critiques of these flaws, but the sheer volume of misinformation made it difficult for the public to keep up. Many specialists submitted detailed reports pointing out these issues, yet the momentum of the campaign to vaccinate the population overshadowed all skepticism.

The Illusion of Scientific Integrity

Watching this unfold was akin to witnessing a magic show—one that moved so quickly it was nearly impossible to debunk in real time. There is no plausible scenario in which these errors were mere mistakes; they were deliberate choices designed to achieve specific outcomes. Yet, despite growing skepticism, political authorities intervened to assist the industry, enforcing vaccine mandates upon entire populations.

Later, booster shots were approved based on outdated trial results rather than fresh, rigorous studies. In some cases, vaccines were cleared for use after minimal testing on a handful of mice. Even top officials at the FDA resigned in protest, unwilling to lend credibility to such reckless decision-making.

It remains staggering that this sequence of events occurred.

Pharmaceutical companies have perfected the art of projecting an image of scientific legitimacy without adhering to its principles.

The Path Forward

A new executive order aims to prevent such manipulations in the future. The current FDA leadership has stated that no future vaccine approvals will be granted unless trials meet transparent and stringent standards. Given these new requirements, it is unlikely that additional versions of the COVID-19 shot will even be proposed, let alone approved. In fact, Moderna has already discontinued efforts to develop a combined COVID-19/flu shot, recognizing the difficulty of passing more stringent approval processes.

While these improved standards are welcome, the broader solution lies in establishing a stricter boundary between government and scientific research. Ideally, government should withdraw entirely from funding such studies, as history has demonstrated the dangers of politically motivated science.

During the first and second industrial revolutions, scientific progress was largely decentralized. Innovation stemmed from private individuals—engineers, doctors, and businesspeople—driven by real-world necessity rather than bureaucratic dictates. The period from 1850 to 1900 produced extraordinary advancements without reliance on massive government funding. In those days, discoveries were not called “technology” but rather the “practical arts”—a term I deeply appreciate and wish we could reclaim.

Science’s Shift Toward Political Interests

In the 20th century, science ceased serving the interests of everyday people and instead became a tool of powerful institutions. Following the Second World War and the advent of nuclear weapons, there was no turning back from this trajectory.

This is what must be reformed. If scientific integrity is to be restored, rigorous standards must be upheld without interference from political agendas. Only then can science reclaim its rightful role: advancing knowledge for the betterment of humanity rather than serving the interests of corporations and governments.

Restoring trust in science requires acknowledging past failures, implementing stringent safeguards, and ensuring that research remains an objective pursuit rather than a vehicle for manipulation.in government backing of science. The funding by industry posing another unique set of problems but at least in this case there is no doubt about the purpose and drive. It’s validity can be assessed in light of that.20,9