You’ve probably heard the phrase a thousand times by now. It was the unofficial slogan of the last few years, shouted from podiums and plastered across news tickers. But when Sharyl Attkisson released her Follow the Science book, she wasn't just repeating a catchphrase. She was digging into the messy, often uncomfortable reality of how "the science" actually gets made, funded, and sold to the public. It's a heavy topic. Honestly, it’s the kind of stuff that makes you want to double-check your medicine cabinet and your news feed at the same time.
Science isn't supposed to be a set of static commandments. It’s a process. But Attkisson, an investigative journalist with a long track record at CBS and now Full Measure, argues that the process has been hijacked. She’s looking at the intersection of Big Pharma, regulatory agencies like the FDA and CDC, and the media outlets that are supposed to keep them honest. It’s not a light read. It’s a deep, sometimes frustrating look at what happens when the pursuit of profit starts to outweigh the pursuit of truth.
The Messy Truth Behind the "Follow the Science" Book
The core of the Follow the Science book is about influence. We like to think of researchers as objective monks in white coats, but they need grants. They need labs. They need to publish or perish. Attkisson tracks how pharmaceutical companies provide a staggering amount of funding for clinical trials, which—let's be real—creates a massive conflict of interest. If a company is paying for the study of its own drug, the results are rarely going to be "this doesn't work and we wasted $500 million."
She gets into the weeds of "ghostwriting," a practice where pharma companies hire professional writers to draft medical journal articles, then pay influential doctors to put their names on them. It’s a way to give a corporate sales pitch the veneer of academic prestige. You’ve seen these studies cited in the news. They look official. They sound authoritative. But according to Attkisson, they’re often just sophisticated marketing.
The book doesn't just stop at the labs. It follows the money into the halls of government. The "revolving door" between the FDA and private industry is a major theme here. When the people regulating the drugs are the same people who used to work for—or hope to eventually work for—the drug companies, the lines get blurry. Fast. It’s not necessarily a grand conspiracy with people twirling mustaches in dark rooms; it’s often just a system where the incentives are totally skewed.
👉 See also: Core Fitness Adjustable Dumbbell Weight Set: Why These Specific Weights Are Still Topping the Charts
Why Peer Review Isn't a Magic Shield
We’re told to trust peer-reviewed studies as the gold standard. In theory, that’s great. In practice, the Follow the Science book points out that the peer-review process is under immense pressure. Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, is famously quoted (and referenced in these circles) saying that much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Why? Because journals love "positive" results. They want the breakthrough. They want the headline. A study that shows a drug doesn't work is boring. It doesn't get clicks. It doesn't get shared. This leads to "publication bias," where negative data is buried in a drawer while the one marginally successful trial is shouted from the rooftops. Attkisson argues that this cherry-picking of data has led to a crisis of reproducibility in science. If you can't repeat the experiment and get the same result, is it even science?
Media, Money, and the Narrative
The media plays a huge role in how this information reaches you. Think about it. Have you noticed how many news broadcasts are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies? "Brought to you by [Drug Name]." Attkisson, having spent decades in corporate newsrooms, doesn't mince words about how this affects coverage. It’s hard to do a hard-hitting investigative piece on a company that’s paying your network’s light bills.
This creates a feedback loop. The company funds the study, the journal publishes the "curated" results, the media reports those results without skepticism, and the public accepts it as "the science." If you question it, you’re often labeled as "anti-science." But as the Follow the Science book suggests, the most scientific thing you can do is ask questions. True science thrives on dissent and debate. When those are shut down in favor of a "consensus" manufactured by PR firms, we’re in trouble.
✨ Don't miss: Why Doing Leg Lifts on a Pull Up Bar is Harder Than You Think
Understanding the "Science" of Censorship
One of the more controversial aspects of the Follow the Science book is its look at how information was handled during the COVID-19 pandemic. Attkisson examines the way social media platforms and government agencies collaborated to "manage" the narrative. Anything that veered off the official path—whether it was about the lab-leak theory, vaccine side effects, or alternative treatments—was often flagged as misinformation.
- The lab-leak theory was once dismissed as a fringe conspiracy.
- Later, agencies like the FBI and the Department of Energy admitted it was a plausible, if not likely, origin.
- The shift in narrative happened only after significant public pressure and independent investigations.
The book argues that this wasn't about protecting the public from "falsehoods," but about protecting a specific policy agenda. When you label something as "misinformation" before the data is even in, you aren't following science. You're following politics. This section of the book is particularly stinging because it highlights how easily "the science" can be used as a tool for social control.
The Problem with "The Consensus"
"Consensus" is a political term, not a scientific one. In science, it doesn't matter how many people believe something if the data says otherwise. Galileo was a minority of one. Einstein challenged the established Newtonian consensus. Attkisson points out that by enforcing a rigid consensus, we actually slow down scientific progress.
We saw this with the discussion around natural immunity. For a long time, the official line was that natural immunity was "unreliable" compared to vaccine-induced immunity. But anyone who has taken a high school biology class knows that's not how the immune system works. Eventually, the studies caught up, showing that natural immunity was robust and long-lasting. But by then, people had lost jobs and been barred from public spaces based on a "consensus" that turned out to be flawed.
🔗 Read more: Why That Reddit Blackhead on Nose That Won’t Pop Might Not Actually Be a Blackhead
Practical Ways to Be a Sane Consumer of Information
It’s easy to get cynical after reading the Follow the Science book. If everything is biased and everyone is bought, what do you do? You don't have to become a hermit or stop taking medicine. But you do have to become an active participant in your own health and information diet.
- Check the funding. Whenever you see a "groundbreaking" study, look at who paid for it. If it’s a study on the benefits of sugar funded by the soda industry, take it with a massive grain of salt.
- Look for the raw data. Scientists who are confident in their findings are usually happy to share their data. If a company or agency is hiding behind "proprietary information" or "national security," be skeptical.
- Diversify your news sources. Don't just stick to one channel or one website. Look for independent journalists who aren't beholden to corporate advertisers.
- Talk to your doctor, but be prepared. Doctors are busy. They often get their information from "drug reps" who visit their offices with free lunches and glossy brochures. Ask your doctor if they’ve read the primary research, not just the summary.
- Pay attention to what's NOT being said. Sometimes the most important part of a news story is the context that’s missing. Who are the dissenting voices? What are their credentials? Why are they being ignored?
The reality is that "the science" is a living, breathing, changing thing. It’s not a religion. It’s okay to doubt. It’s okay to wait for more data. Attkisson’s Follow the Science book serves as a loud, clear reminder that the moment we stop questioning the people in power—especially when they claim to speak for "the science"—is the moment we lose the ability to think for ourselves.
To take this a step further, start by looking up a medication you currently take on a site like Open Payments. This is a federal database where you can see exactly how much money your doctor or their hospital has received from pharmaceutical companies. It’s an eye-opening exercise that grounds the abstract concepts of medical influence into your personal life. From there, make it a habit to look for "Conflict of Interest" disclosures at the bottom of any medical study you read. Recognizing the financial fingerprints on a piece of research is the first step toward understanding its true objective.