How Did “Public Health” Turn Into the Opposite of Health?
Once you understand what their version of “telling the truth” means, everything else suddenly makes sense.
The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
Peter Navarro told Fauci to his face that he had “blood on his hands” for keeping hydroxychloroquine from the American people.
Navarro walked into the Situation Room with a huge stack of papers, saying hydroxychloroquine worked. The one person who helped Fauci escape Navarro was Vice President Mike Pence, who told him to “take this outside.”
This is a story that comes from Dr. Fauci himself.
He says he never wanted to contradict President Trump’s COVID messaging, but felt compelled to do so out of a responsibility to “tell the truth.”
For people like Fauci, “telling the truth” doesn’t mean transparency. It follows a very different logic, and once you see it, everything about COVID suddenly makes sense.
Something dangerous has happened to science.
It didn’t happen overnight, and it didn’t happen by accident.
Science, once a method for discovering truth through open debate and constant challenge, has been replaced by something else entirely: scientism.
And unlike science, scientism does not tolerate dissent.
Anthony Fauci not only promoted scientism, he took it to an extreme. In the interview below, he actually argued that he is “the science.”
And if you don’t agree? You’re anti-science. And dangerous.
Scientism is not skepticism, rigor, or evidence-based reasoning.
Scientism is not science.
It is the elevation of credentialed authority over inquiry itself.
Instead of asking whether claims are correct, scientism asks who is allowed to speak.
And once that shift occurs, truth is no longer discovered—it is declared.
Real science advances by allowing ideas to be challenged, refined, or discarded.
Scientism? It does the exact opposite.
It treats official positions as settled dogma and labels critics as dangerous, ignorant, or immoral rather than engaging their evidence.
You probably remember the phrase “the science is settled” repeated often during COVID. But there’s nothing scientific about it.
Unfortunately, years ago public relations discovered that one of the most effective ways to control the public was to use short phrases that effectively manipulate the audience.
Those short phrases are then repeated into oblivion.
And the mainstream news is a perfect vehicle for it. Especially considering six companies own almost all of the media in the U.S.
You may notice in the video below that the news anchors reading from the same script aren’t all from the same network. They’re from every major U.S. network. And they’re all saying the exact same thing.
This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.
The Deadly Rise of Scientism
The shift from science to scientism created an environment where certain individuals were elevated as unchallengeable arbiters of truth.
Among the most extreme examples are Anthony Fauci and Peter Hotez, who repeatedly positioned themselves not as participants in scientific debate, but as guardians of acceptable opinion.
And unfortunately, most people listened and welcomed that authority.
Anthony Fauci became a symbol of this transformation.
Instead of encouraging open scientific disagreement, he publicly dismissed and marginalized even credentialed scientists who questioned dominant public health policies.
Even when those scientists presented data, experience, or alternative interpretations.
It was his way or the highway.
Rather than debate critics, Fauci leveraged institutional authority, media access, and moral framing to shut down discussion.
Disagreement was no longer treated as part of science, but as a threat to public order that needed to be suppressed.
And average people around the world followed suit. No questions, no conversations, no debates. Just the same script, over and over.
Peter Hotez played a similar role, particularly in shaping public perception.
He consistently framed dissent as misinformation, not by rebutting arguments point by point, but by questioning the motives and legitimacy of those raising concerns.
Hotez repeatedly advocated for silencing or deplatforming critics, arguing that public discussion and debate itself was harmful.
This approach reflects scientism perfectly: the belief that the public must be protected not from false claims, but from debate itself.
The full article from A Midwestern Doctor documents how authority replaced evidence—and it names the people who helped make it happen.
The Deadly Rise of Scientism
Once debate is shut down, errors can’t be corrected.
Policies built on flawed assumptions persist longer, cause more harm, and become increasingly difficult to reverse because admitting error would undermine institutional authority.
And this dynamic doesn’t just affect abstract policy. It affects real people.
When scientists, doctors, or researchers are discouraged from speaking openly, warning signs are missed, alternative strategies are ignored, and individuals bear the consequences.
Scientism also changes incentives inside institutions.
Researchers quickly learn that career survival depends less on being correct and more on being compliant.
Funding, publication, and promotion become contingent on alignment with approved narratives.
That is not science.
Over time, this creates an illusion of consensus.
Dissenting voices disappear. Not because they are wrong, but because the system makes participation too costly.
What we’re left with looks a lot like agreement, but it is silence enforced by power.
This isn’t about mistakes. It’s about a system that punishes anyone who tries to question or correct it.
The Deadly Rise of Scientism
Scientism thrives on public trust.
That trust is usually built by genuine scientific success. But soon after that trust is weaponized.
Appeals to authority replace transparent reasoning, and the public is told that obedience is synonymous with being pro-science.
You’re not anti-science, are you?!
When this belief takes hold, questioning official positions become socially unacceptable.
People respond by self-censoring. Professionals hesitate. Those who try to challenge are ridiculed—sometimes publicly—and excluded from society.
The feedback mechanisms that once protected society from large-scale error quietly collapse. And it happened very, very quickly during COVID.
Fauci and Hotez didn’t create this system alone, but they sure exemplified it.
They modeled a version of science that treated uncertainty as dangerous and disagreement as illegitimate.
They reinforced the false idea that science should command compliance, not invite scrutiny.
This isn’t merely a philosophical problem. It is a practical one.
When institutions lose their ability to self-correct, they become brittle.
And when reality finally intrudes, the damage is greater because warning signs were ignored.
The institutions crack and crumble.
Unfortunately, scientism erodes trust in science. Real science.
When people eventually see contradictions, reversals, or harms that were previously denied, confidence collapses—not just in individuals, but in science itself.
And this collapse has been a longtime coming.
What happens when science becomes immune to correction? A Midwestern Doctor’s full report answers this question and more.
The Deadly Rise of Scientism
The tragedy is that none of this was necessary. None of this had to happen.
Science doesn’t need to be protected from debate. Science needs debate to function!
Suppressing questions and shutting down debate doesn’t strengthen science—it weakens it.
Reclaiming science means rejecting scientism.
It means demanding transparency, tolerating disagreement, and remembering that no credential, title, or institution is above scrutiny.
The future of science depends on restoring humility and openness.
Progress doesn’t come from silencing critics. It comes from confronting uncomfortable evidence and being willing to change course when reality demands it.
Because it will.
If we want better outcomes, we must insist on better standards.
Science must remain a method, not a belief system enforced by authority—before it’s too late.
Join me in refusing to accept a version of science that fears questions more than it fears being wrong. Because in the end, that’s not science at all.
Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
The Deadly Rise of Scientism
For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:
What They Don’t Tell You About C-Sections
How DMSO Cures Eye, Ear, Nose, Throat and Dental Disease
What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?
While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.
If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:
“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about.”
– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine
“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”
– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter
“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”
– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)
It stopped being about public health when they chose to manage illnesses not cure them. As they say, nothing personal, just business.
I think "science" has been compromised for a very very long time.