Trust Me I'm An Expert

Because that's what the "data" shows

Last week, I was planning a podcast episode on a controversial topic when someone reached out to "warn" me about the dangers of my intended discussion. This person—let's call him Dr. Authority—introduced himself by rattling off his impressive credentials and then delivered his verdict with the smug certainty that only comes from years of institutional validation.

"Roger, I'm an expert in this field," he declared, as if those words alone should end all further inquiry. "You really shouldn't be discussing this topic. It's dangerous misinformation."

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Instead of being intimidated by his self-proclaimed expertise, I saw this as an opportunity. If this man truly was an expert, then surely he could handle some rigorous questioning from someone genuinely seeking truth, right?

Wrong.

Within minutes of our conversation, when I pressed him on specific data points and asked about conflicting evidence, he retreated to the holy scripture of expert culture: "Well, the data shows..."

The data shows.

Those three words—the modern equivalent of "because I said so"—deployed like a conversation-ending atomic bomb. No need to engage with my questions. No requirement to address contradictory evidence. No obligation to explain methodology or funding sources. Just invoke the sacred phrase and watch the peasants bow in reverence.

But here's the thing that makes this entire charade so infuriating: We just lived through the greatest example of expert failure in modern history. We watched as "the data shows" became the rallying cry for policies that destroyed lives, shattered economies, and traumatized children—policies that have now been quietly abandoned without a single admission of error.

Remember when "the data showed" that healthy children needed to be vaccinated? Now it's no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. Did the data change? Of course not. The data was always the same. What changed was the political and economic calculus of the institutions that control the narrative.

But Dr. Authority expected me to forget all of that. He expected me to genuflect before his credentials and accept his word as gospel truth. He expected me to be intimidated by his title rather than inspired to ask harder questions.

"Trust me, I'm an expert."

Every single time someone opens their mouth with "The data shows..." what they're really saying is: "Stop thinking. Stop questioning. Stop being human. I have a framed piece of paper that gives me the authority to think for you."

The data shows.

The science is settled.

Trust the experts.

Follow the protocol.

We've created a world where the phrase "I read a study" has become more powerful than "I had a direct experience." Where peer review has replaced personal discernment. Where institutional authority trumps intuitive wisdom. Where the ability to cite research matters more than the courage to challenge it.

And now we're paying the price.

The Academic Indoctrination Machine

My graduate school training was a masterclass in intellectual compliance—witnessing the systematic destruction of independent thought in real time, and I was a willing participant in my own intellectual lobotomy.

The rules were crystal clear: Every single thought had to be backed by a published study or it was worthless. You couldn't even mention an idea without immediately genuflecting to the altar of peer review with a proper citation.

Having an original thought? Dangerous.

Making an observation based on direct experience? Irrelevant.

I spent years learning to write papers that read like bibliographic vomit—more citations than original thoughts. My professors didn't give a damn about the quality of the research I was citing. They cared about one thing: Was it published in a "prestigious" journal?

If it appeared in Nature, Science, The Lancet, or The New England Journal of Medicine, it was gospel truth. We were taught to worship journal prestige rather than evaluate research quality.

This conditioning runs so deep you can see it today in someone like Andrew Huberman, who's built an empire by constantly invoking "peer-reviewed research" and "the gold standard of science." He's peddling the same intellectual servitude, merely wrapped in savvier marketing and podcast legitimacy. He's not seeking truth; he's performing expertise by name-dropping prestigious publications.

This is how we train every "expert"—condition them to outsource thinking to institutional authorities, teach them that journal prestige matters more than research quality.

Medical training makes this worse. Physicians learn "Evidence-Based Medicine" as the pinnacle of scientific rigor when it's actually institutional compliance over clinical judgment. A doctor's decades of experience becomes less valuable than a study published last month in a "prestigious" journal.

This is how you manufacture intellectual slaves disguised as experts.

The House of Cards Collapses

And then, like a gift from the universe, came the confessions that shattered the entire facade.

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet—one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world—finally admitted what independent researchers have been screaming for decades: The whole system is compromised.

In his April 2015 editorial "What is medicine's 5 sigma?" Horton wrote: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

Let that sink in for a moment. The editor of one of the world's most respected medical journals just told you that half of what gets published might be complete bullshit.

But Horton wasn't alone in this devastating assessment. Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine—another of the world's most prestigious medical publications—delivered an equally damning verdict: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines."

Let’s repeat that again for those in the back.

Think about what these two editors are telling you. Between them, they represent decades of experience at the pinnacle of medical publishing. They've seen the studies, reviewed the data, witnessed the process from the inside. And their unanimous conclusion? The system is fundamentally corrupted.

Dr. John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor and medical researcher, has made it his life's work to challenge his fellow peers by uncovering flawed scientific practices. He's known as a meta-researcher, and his expertise has propelled him to the forefront as a leading authority on the credibility of medical research globally. He has consistently demonstrated that a significant portion of the findings drawn by biomedical researchers in their published studies tend to be misleading, overstated, and frequently outright incorrect.

To what extent is the problem?He asserts as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed.

Horton specifically calls out the "flagrant conflicts of interest" and the pursuit of "fashionable trends of dubious importance." He's describing a system where financial incentives shape research conclusions, where studies are designed to produce marketable results rather than discover truth.

In other words, the very studies that establish "scientific consensus"—the research that experts cite when they smugly declare "the data shows"—are largely compromised by the same commercial interests that profit from specific conclusions.

It's like asking tobacco companies to fund research on smoking, then acting surprised when the studies conclude that cigarettes are healthy.

This isn't science. This is marketing with a lab coat.

But here's the really infuriating part: How many treatment protocols have been based on this corrupted research? How many public health policies? How many pharmaceutical interventions? How many lives have been damaged by "evidence-based medicine" that was actually evidence-based marketing?

And how many experts built their entire careers on citing these industry-sponsored studies, never once questioning the underlying financial incentives that shaped the conclusions?

The foundation of expert authority—peer-reviewed research published in prestigious journals—has been revealed as intellectual money laundering on a global scale.

The Psychology of Intellectual Submission

Why do we fall for this again and again? Why do otherwise intelligent people immediately prostrate themselves before anyone with the right combination of letters after their name?

Because humans have a hardwired cognitive bias called authority bias—the tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure and be more influenced by that opinion. It's like a psychological backdoor that bypasses all your critical thinking and dumps you straight into compliance mode.

This bias evolved for good reason. In small tribal groups of 50-150 people, deferring to experienced elders who had survived multiple winters, predator attacks, and food shortages often meant the difference between life and death. That gray-haired hunter who'd been tracking animals for decades?

Yeah, you probably should listen to him about which berries will kill you.

But in complex modern societies with millions of strangers, this same bias becomes a weapon of mass psychological manipulation.

Watch what happens when someone introduces themselves as "Dr. So-and-so from Harvard Medical School." You can literally see people's critical thinking faculties power down in real time. Their pupils dilate slightly. Their posture changes. Their questioning mind goes offline. The credentials become a kind of psychological override code that bypasses rational analysis and activates submission mode.

It's Pavlovian.

The more prestigious the institution, the more powerful the hypnosis. "Harvard" hits different than "State University." "Johns Hopkins" carries more psychological weight than (insert non-elite institution). We've been conditioned to believe that institutional affiliation equals intellectual authority, that the fancier the letterhead, the more trustworthy the thoughts.

Never mind that these same institutions are completely captured by the industries they're supposed to study objectively. Never mind that getting into Harvard often requires more political savvy than intellectual honesty. Never mind that academic success frequently depends on your ability to regurgitate approved narratives rather than discover inconvenient truths.

The credentials are all that matter. The credentials are the spell. The credentials are the drug that makes critical thinking overdose and die.

And here's where it gets really perverse: Add to this the echo chamber effect—where experts primarily interact with other experts who share similar training, assumptions, and financial incentives—and you get a system that's remarkably resistant to self-correction.

It's intellectual inbreeding on a massive scale.

Experts cite other experts who cite other experts who cite other experts, creating a circular reference system that appears authoritative but is actually just an elaborate academic circle-jerk. They all went to the same universities, learned from the same textbooks, absorbed the same assumptions, and now they spend their careers validating each other's predetermined conclusions.

Dr. Harvard cites Dr. Yale who references Dr. Stanford who builds on Dr. Princeton's work, and suddenly you have "scientific consensus." But it's not consensus based on diverse perspectives rigorously testing ideas against reality—it's consensus based on institutional groupthink amplified through prestigious publication networks.

They're all reading from the same script, written by the same interests, funded by the same sources, serving the same masters. But because they have different names and different institutional affiliations, it looks like independent validation when it's actually just the same voice speaking through different mouths.

It's like watching a ventriloquist perform with five different puppets and thinking you're hearing a diverse panel discussion.

The beauty of this system—from the perspective of those who benefit from it—is that it's completely self-reinforcing. Dissenting voices are excluded from prestigious institutions, denied publication in "respected" journals, and marginalized as "fringe" or "unqualified." The echo chamber polices itself, ensuring that only approved voices get amplified while heretical ideas are suffocated in academic anonymity.

And we call this "peer review." As if having your ideas evaluated by people who share your biases, funding sources, and career incentives constitutes rigorous scrutiny rather than mutual back-scratching.

The whole system is designed to make you feel stupid for questioning it. "Who are you to challenge Dr. Expert from Harvard? Do you have a PhD? Have you published in peer-reviewed journals? What's your expertise in this field?"

These aren't invitations to intellectual engagement—they're dominance displays designed to shame you back into submission. They're saying: "Know your place. Stay in your lane. Defer to your betters."

But here's what they're terrified for you to remember: Truth doesn't care about your credentials. Reality doesn't respect your institutional affiliation. The universe doesn't consult your publication record before revealing its secrets.

Some of the greatest breakthroughs in human history came from people with zero official expertise in their revolutionary fields. The Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics who figured out flight while "aeronautical experts" declared it impossible. Steve Jobs was a college dropout who revolutionized computing while IBM's army of PhD engineers missed the personal computer revolution entirely.

Real expertise isn't about credentials—it's about results. It's about the courage to question everything, the humility to admit ignorance, and the persistence to seek truth even when it threatens your career, your reputation, and your comfortable position in the academic hierarchy.

But that kind of expertise is dangerous to the system. That kind of expertise can't be controlled, can't be bought, can't be programmed to serve institutional interests.

The Expert Get’s Day in Court

Which brings me back to Dr. Authority and his attempt to intimidate me out of exploring controversial territory on my podcast.

You know what? I'm going to invite him on.

Not because I respect his credentials or defer to his institutional authority, but because I want to give him exactly what he claims to possess: expertise. I want to see if his knowledge can withstand rigorous questioning from someone who refuses to be impressed by letters after names or institutional affiliations.

I'm going to press him on methodology. I'm going to demand he explain contradictory evidence instead of dismissing it. I'm going to challenge his underlying assumptions and force him to defend his conclusions with something more substantial than "the data shows."

And when he inevitably retreats to his credentials—when he pulls out the “Expert” card or the peer-review trump card—I'm going to remind him and my audience that truth doesn't give a fuck about his resume.

If he truly is an expert, he should welcome this opportunity to educate someone genuinely seeking understanding. If he's just another credentialed carnival barker hiding behind institutional authority, that will become obvious very quickly.

The next time someone says "Trust me, I'm an expert," remember this moment. Remember that real expertise welcomes scrutiny, fears no question, and stands on the strength of evidence rather than the weakness of intimidation.

Here's the thing: The people who actually know what they're talking about rarely call themselves experts. They're too busy pursuing truth to worry about titles. They say "I don't know" without shame and invite you to challenge their thinking. They get excited when questioned—because they know that's how knowledge advances.

The ones who constantly need to remind you they're experts? They're usually the ones who know the least. They demand deference because their arguments can't stand on their own merit.

Real knowledge doesn't need credentials to validate it.

Truth doesn't require your submission to reveal itself.

Wisdom doesn't demand that you stop thinking in order to receive it.

RESIST

---

I try to keep RADICALLY GENUINE as free as I can, but it takes quite a lot of work. If you find some value in my writing and podcast I very much appreciate the paid subscription. It really helps me continue putting time aside for these pieces. Thank you.