We have a serious problem, and thanks to the member who posted the Joel Salatin video).

The problem is discerning between Science and Peer-Reviewed-Academia.

The modern person confuses the two. Yet, their differences couldn't be more stark.

Science, to be clear, is a process of finding the truth, by questioning, creating hypothesis, and testing the resulting hypothesis in a repeatable manner. through this process we have discovered many "laws" of science (conservation of energy, momentum, etc.).

They key attribute to Science is that there are no Sacred Cows. All it takes is one Black Swan to prove that all swans are not White!
This is the inequality of evidence. It only takes one City to do a lock down, and not get the stated results, to remove the argument that Lockdowns Work! It took one Cruise Ship to show the spread of Covid, and the true risk of death. It was far lower than we were later told. It took ONE Military ship to tell us how much less it affects our military.

Science leaves evidence behind that can be evaluated. And any Scientist worth their salt will change their minds when new evidence arises!
[NOTE that not doing so is simply a human failure, usually caused by an income stream in the original line of thinking!]

Science said, early on, that early treatments work, against Covid.
==

Now lets compare Academia. In Academia, there is a rule... Publish or Perish. If you cannot publish anything useful, you will NOT be in Academia for long. This creates a challenge. Because Peer-Review was originally designed to break down the math/stats/approach to make sure it met proper rigor, and we were simply not being lied to. Effectively telling us "If these numbers are real, the conclusions should be".

But it goes one further. There are very few gate keepers in publishing this information. And if they all believe in Climate Change. You will probably not publish much that challenges that paradigm. Worse, they will publish almost anything that promotes that paradigm.

To the point, there are regular groups of people who submit papers for publication, that are utter BS (by design), and clearly BS. And the Academic Peer-Review process continually Publishes them, and then sees them as facts.

==
Good Science will produce Predictable Results. Peer Reviewed Papers often do not! Especially when it comes to Economics, and Medical.
Most Medical Studies CANNOT be reproduced. And BS Science (the NOCEBO Effect) are created from Whole Cloth to hide problems with drugs.

We all know that about 1/3rd of medical results can be attributed to the PLACEBO effect. So this is where RCTs are used, and signals above a Control Group are required. But we had a problem. We had so many people complain of side-effects of the drugs, that the drug companies needed a way to discredit these ungrateful sloths... So, they decided they would test people who were and were not given the drug, to see if they complained of those symptoms. And they found (amazingly? Nope), that they did. The people on the PLACEBO group, not getting the drug, were complaining of the very issues people getting the drug were. Therefore, these are not real issues.

NEWSFLASH... It's a rigged system! (I know, I know, your shocked Face is showing)

Let me explain how Statin Drugs are tested (known for their side-effects, like a 10% increased risk of T2D, Muscle Pain, etc)
First, they give all participants the drug for an X Week Period. And this causes many people to wash out due to the side-effects.
Cool, we do not Count them. This is the preview portion of the study. LMAO

Now, we do a RCT, and give half the drug, and half the placebo. Now, more people wash out, because the issues become more severe.
Their complaints must be recorded, and the timing. If it is bad enough. Cancel the study, and use a new, longer washout Period.

Okay, during the RCT, many patients will report issues. T2D is detected by blood work, so it is not targeted as a problem. Just not widely discussed. But joint pain. That, and its severity is user reported....

So, after the study. they take the group off the medicine for some Y Weeks. To get it out of their system.
Then they run the NOCEBO test. And they re-randomize these people. (now, I am not sure if they adjust the number of people, etc.).
Regardless. You have some people who may still have the drug or side-effect going on. And even though they are now on the PLACEBO, they report the pain/issues.

The geniuses then count these people as NOCEBO induced pain... Disproving their first claim about the pain.

These numbers get crunched by massive algorithms, and are then put in the best possible light for the person who paid for the research.
And that gets published.

The unsuspecting public believes that Statins give each patient a 60% reduction in the risk of a heart attack.
But crunching the numbers, you see quickly that the NNT is like 300 people (300 people have to take the statin, for 1 to not have a heart attack. And that 10% increase in T2D means we will create 30 T2D to save one person a heart attack). All done with Relative Risk.
==

The point is that Peer-Review allows for a lot more than "Science" to be published, and should never be used as a truth measurement.
Anything Can and Will be published in Peer-Reviewed Journals.

Science, on the other hand, is Durable. It is Repeatable. And when it isn't, new theories are sought to explain the differences.
Science is also predictable.

Show me a model that always fails, and I can show you a Peer-Reviewed Model.

Show me Science that always fails to predict, and I will show you a Blown Hypothesis.

Final comment... An example.

I read a doctor saying "Omicron will kill just as many people as Delta... Because even though it kills less, it spreads faster!"
Doing any math on that statement leads you to want to shoot this fella. He did not clearly state in a unit of time. (Meaning Omicron may kill as many people as Delta in the average month, because it spreads 5 times faster). But even then. The basic math from the UK was that it was 85% less lethal. That would imply that it would have to spread like 15-20 times faster for that basic statement to be true.

That statement could be considered Peer-Reviewed Truth. But when I attempted to explain this to someone with a PhD and a daughter who is a nurse that repeated this claim... She could not grasp it. Ratios, it turns out, are hard on people. She is also quite fearful of this virus.
==

The take-away... When people quote "Meh, Science", you can retort: "Your Confusing Academia for Science... I can explain it to you!"

HTH in some small way!