>>"Lots of "Science" is "unscientific.""<<
I have thought about this for a few days now... and I would agree that the falsified and\or manipulated so called "peer reviewed" (which means nothing IMO in light of this) Science
coming to light in a steady stream these days (this is supposed to be a time of "truth" according to many) does not help "science", and actually is harmful to it as there is a great deal of trust involved here. This does not make "real science" unscientific.
However a great deal of "real science" IS based upon "theory" which can be, as has been illustrated by science's ever changing accepted dogmatic past, a gross misinterpretation of reality and thus wrong from the get go, leading to findings which are not "unscientific" per se, however unequivocally "false" due to the misapplications and misinterpretations of the theory in question.
In addition, a scientist's belief in a "theory" is not much different than an individuals "faith" in a particular religion, in that both believe their "ideas\ideals" to be true, when in fact they may not be.
Thus "real medical science" is often "misdirected" in its scope, and inevitably coming to many wrong conclusions.
When medical Science
made an association\correlation with "high cholesterol" and health issues, it went about studying cholesterol, the different kinds of cholesterol and then finding a way to lower cholesterol and\or improve HDL\LDL ratios instead of finding out WHY, the cholesterol was high and\or out of whack in the first place - perhaps they did do this, however realized little financial "reward" in telling people to ditch the sunscreen (it is a lie), and get adequate sun exposure (the truth). What "triggered" the body's need for more cholesterol? AND\OR, what are the effects of various fats on cholesterol production in the body?
IMO - cholesterol ratios could be off and\or could be elevated for a number of different reasons... including low hormone levels, low vitamin D, etc. All in one way or another associated with a dysfunctional fat metabolism that could be caused in part by eating the wrong fats and\or too much fat, even of the "right" kind.
NOTE: there are popular anti vitamin D sites that use studies of people half way around the world in comparison to others... bad idea... diet and environment profoundly affects not only genetic expression, but also the physical needs of function and metabolism.
This is why one may choose do as I do in terms of their health and find little or no benefit... if they are living in an arctic climate, and I live in an arid, hot desert, our dietary\nutritional and environmental needs are going to be quite different in order to maintain radiant health.
So while Science
IS a huge disappointment for many due to outright lie and fraud by some researchers, and the for profit agenda based science by industries, pharmaceutical, and agricultural among others, some science is valuable.
For instance - a few cases of herbs being accused of containing a "patented" substance have been pulled off of the shelves of late... come to find out, through my personal research, these "patented" substances were nothing more than synthetic compounds "copied" from the herbal to begin with.
This does not stop the MSM created public panic and the pulling from market, these valuable herbs though. This works because most all people, including our policy makers, are clueless about the criminal pharmaceutical industries synthesizing and patenting the herbal compound, and then subsequent attack on these herbs, to eliminate competition, which is unfortunate.
In addition, differences in the synthetic and herbal compounds include the strengths and distances of the electron orbits, atom, and compound spin and polarity among other things which can cause profound changes in the action of said compound.
The herbs themselves are far and away the better choice over the drugs due to known and unknown synergistic effect(s) of the whole "food".
Technically speaking, food is medicine... and on this premise, the FDA, et. al. attacks the food and supplement industry and polices labels and products... that alone should be proof enough that high quality whole foods, including herbs and spices are our best path to health.
Bottom line - when we read an article, we must ask questions... is the "substance" used clearly defined? If the news report or peer reviewed article states "vitamin e" without defining said E as synthetic or natural, isolate or whole food, then there are immediate red flags that go up regardless of whether the article is pro or con on the subject. In addition, asking who funded the project, and what was their intent, would also be appropriate and pertinent questions to the outcome of the "study". Other questions would include the subjects in the studies, and their current state of health among other things.
NOTHING can be taken at face value and NOTHING is written in stone except for, what many would state are "God's Laws".