Thank you for sharing your thoughts. In general, I agree with your comment and conclusion—except for the last sentence: “A formal education in a topic doesn’t guarantee you are right.” (link)
I often hear this view, and frankly, it troubles me. Yes, many scientists wrongly treat their education as a seal of correctness. However, a more significant issue is that non-scientists often forcefully impose their views with absolute certainty. This is the real tragedy: those who have studied and worked in genuine science are placed on the same level as those who have not. People without scientific training—including physicians—often assume the authority of science without having been scientists themselves.
Let me explain. I consider myself a student of real science—chemistry. (Ignore my credentials for a moment, link) Chemistry is the foundation of medicine and physiology, though most—including physicians—fail to recognize this. Instead, they invent substitutes such as “medical science,” “pharmaceutical science,” or “health science.” These may sound respectable, but they are not sciences in the true sense. So when non-scientifically educated people criticize “science,” they are usually criticizing these false versions of it. It becomes a case of two wrongs trying to make a right—and that never works.
This is precisely what we observe in debates and interviews, including the one currently under discussion with Joe Rogan: two individuals without a proper foundation in real science (chemistry) argue endlessly, only to end in confusion and unresolved claims. This has been the pattern for decades.
Real science, by contrast, is clear and decisive. It deals only with physical, tangible substances (link). If someone claims to be working with a virus or one of its variants, real science requires them to present the actual sample they are studying. If they cannot, it doesn’t matter what credentials they hold—they are not scientists. They are false priests of science, deceiving themselves and misleading others.
Equally, true science demands validated tests. Any diagnostic test must be proven against the actual substance it claims to measure. Yet in virology, no such validation exists. Virus tests cannot be validated because there is no reference standard for a virus. PCR tests, antibody assays, and similar methods therefore lack true scientific credibility. Anyone basing conclusions on them—whether physician, researcher, or “expert”—is not practicing science. They are spreading misinformation.
This is why, in my view, serious discussions about science must involve people educated and trained in true science—not in invented substitutes.