THE RESONANCE REPORT NOVEMBER 2025: A SPECIAL SCIENCE EDITION

This will likely be controversial. Why? Because I've observed a growing trend of 'science' being used more like dogma—almost a religious doctrine, not to be questioned, only to be believed. Unfortunately, questioning 'the science' can result in negative labels that damage both individuals and productive discourse. This is unhelpful for everyone involved and for society in general.

ROOT: What Is Science

When looking up 'what is science' using a general search engine, the first page displayed a list of about ten different links. They all had their own definitions of what 'science' is. Some label it a process. Some as a body of knowledge obtained in a scientific way (which is not a great definition, using the queried word as part of the answer.) Others define science as specific areas of study.

As a registered pharmacist for over thirty years, I have considerable experience soaking in science. My take on the actual meaning is a process, not a thing.

A verb, not a noun.

Doing science involves both experimental and anecdotal observations in a step-by-step, objective manner. Generally, this method should be repeatable to get the same or similar outcomes. That's it. No opinions, pre-conceived notions, existing bias, or even expectation of the outcome involved.

GROWTH: The Changing Knowledge Landscape

Right, you may be thinking, then where is the controversy? Good question, and one I ask myself quite often. There shouldn't be any. 'The science is settled' is a phrase I've heard repeatedly in media and personal conversations.

But what does that even mean?

Science is an ongoing process. With the introduction of new evidence, a method re-evaluation, or a different interpretation of outcomes, science may change.

I learned this first-hand right out of pharmacy school. By the time I graduated, some of the information taught had already changed. Over thirty years of practice and continuing education I've seen drug products withdrawn from the market, hopeful new treatments that did not produce the desired results, and new understandings of pharmacology emerge.

On a few occasions I even found myself resistant to the updated information. A protective and defensive reaction to what I thought was 'true' being proven not to be, perhaps. That initial resistance—that uncomfortable feeling when something you've built your understanding on gets challenged—is deeply unsettling but also human. So I get it. I understand the resistance to potentially new or changed science principles. Especially when your entire career has been devoted to them.

This isn't just about textbooks and clinical practice. It affects real people directly. How many have gone to their doctor with troubling symptoms only to be told it's 'probably all in your head' or 'just stress'? How many were dismissed, their concerns minimized, only to discover months or years later they were right about something being wrong?

The inability to question—even about our own bodies and experiences—can have real consequences for real people. Like you.

BLOOM: The Problem

As outlined above, the stance of 'the science is settled' is often seen in our society. Why is this a problem? Because science is a changing, dynamic process, not a solid, unmovable idea.

Think of how we went from the Earth as the centre of our universe to the solar and galactic model of today. Shifting from 'smoking is healthy' to what we know now. The ongoing discoveries of how our natural world works.

When did 'questioning the science' become controversial?

Consider the patients told their debilitating symptoms were 'just anxiety' before fibromyalgia was recognized as a legitimate condition. Or those dismissed and labelled hysterical before we understood autoimmune disorders. Or the countless people still experiencing symptoms today that don't fit neatly into current diagnostic categories.

History repeatedly shows us that today's medicine, a branch of science, has been wrong before—and will be wrong again.

This isn't about any single topic, but rather a pattern I've observed strewn across multiple areas. If you think about the events and changing opinions over the last ten or so years, you get it. The fact that I am not willing to get into any details is a prime example of how this is a problem.

With that in mind, let me present a made-up scenario to explain what I mean.

Let's pretend a new species of tree is discovered in a remote location. Rather than being green or red or any of the usual tree colours, it's electric blue. And it hums. Audibly. The scientists of the world descend on this blue humming tree to find out what it is, why it's different, where it may have come from, and can we use it for humanity somehow.

After a couple of months, there are two theories developed. One is that the blue humming tree is a result of changing electromagnetic currents of Earth. The other insists that it must be from another planet or dimension. Papers are published. The scientists involved are interviewed by the media, on podcasts, and now have their own YouTube channels. This newly discovered blue humming tree has achieved rock-star status all over the world.

The idea that our new blue humming tree did not originate on Earth starts to dominate. Now known as 'the ET Tree', it becomes an international sensation. Everyone wants one in their own garden. ET Tree societies emerge. It seems the primary consensus is the ET Tree idea. Experiments and research appear to support this as well.

Those supporting the electromagnetic change origin, now known as EMC's, begin to slide out of the spotlight. Although just as many research papers are submitted, journals begin to reject them for publishing. The EMC idea is labelled as pseudoscience, not real, not the truth. Anyone with the EMC opinion is now labelled as conspiracy theorists, or simply crazy.

Eventually, institutions begin discouraging EMC research. Funding dries up. Journals reject papers not on methodology, but on conclusion. Families with differing opinions within them fracture. People lose friends. Even their jobs in some cases. Yet an underground network of EMC-ers persists in their research, and start collecting solid proof that they may actually be correct.

I will end the fake scenario here. The EMC researchers might be wrong. Or they might be right. But we'll never know if asking the question becomes forbidden.

See the problem?

SEED: What Can Be Done

This publication isn't offering any specific answers. You may come up with your own, or start a discussion with others to explore these ideas. I felt the insistent urge to share this after years of intense research on everything from Reiki to space weather.

The inability to genuinely question scientific claims without social penalty—or even worse consequences—seems like a huge regression for society as a whole. And to each one of us.

Where would we be now if no one in history asked, 'Why?'

Things to think about:

• If you find yourself having an intense reaction to an opinion you strongly disagree with, ask yourself why this is happening

• Read or listen to ideas that are opposite to your own on occasion

• Consider your own bias—do you ever instantly label someone for what they believe?

Science advances through open questions. Society advances through open conversation. For both to thrive, we cannot lose either.

I would genuinely love to hear your opinions about this post: heidi@visionsbyheidi.com