By David Stephen
Sedona, Az — You can fight for discovery, but you almost probably cannot fight science.
There are several battles within scientific fields all the time, adding to the rigor that theories and evidence have to pass to reach wide acceptance.
However, it is almost not a winnable [or credible] battle to fight in directions that appear like an individual is taking on science. While science continues to evolve, there are some areas that an individual can get bogged down and get blindsided to new territories where far better progress can be made in that same era.
There is an upcoming [January, 2026] print issue by The Atlantic, Why Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. So Convinced He’s Right?, stating that, “The fact that vaccines can harm people is not contested: The existence of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a testament to the American public-health establishment’s acknowledgment of that. The frequency and nature of that harm, however, is highly contested. From 2006 to 2022, about 5 billion vaccine doses were distributed in the U.S. The NVICP paid about one settlement for every 1 million doses. Kennedy believes that the real rate of injury could be 100 times higher than what is reported.”
The feature — though was complimentary a few times — contained a lot of brutal rebuttals that it should be a moment of pivot for the Secretary, from fighting against vaccines, to building new fields of explorations, in science, for discovery.
What does the prioritized focus against vaccines divert, even assuming the Secretary is ‘completely’ right? How does the fight make it easy to define and label the Secretary? Why does the Secretary platform several opponents who use responses to be relevant? Why would the Secretary not know that you still need as much credibility as possible in policy, because of many important advances ahead, not just to be washed out by self-distracted battles.
Medical Journals
What is the most explosive mainstream breakthrough in the last few years?
Artificial intelligence.
What is the equivalent of AI or at least its parallel in biology? Human intelligence.
What is anyone doing about answering the unknowns about human intelligence in the brain, directly, with its types, its conceptual mechanisms, its stations and relays? Nothing. Is there even a lab for human intelligence research, anywhere? No.
If you searched four of the top medical journals on earth, they have nothing on human intelligence.
[The Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA has nothing on human intelligence]
[The New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM has nothing on human intelligence]
[The British Medical Journal, BMJ has nothing on human intelligence]
[The Lancet has nothing on human intelligence]
They just don’t have articles directly in this age of AI, to explore how to improve human intelligence, in the brain for problem-solving. They also do not have a dedicated section to drive attention to human intelligence, as the news about AI solidifies and benchmarks soar.
Also,
[Nature has nothing much on human intelligence].
[Science has little relevant to human intelligence for the AI era.]
[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS, is scanty on human intelligence.]
[Cell has insignificant results on human intelligence]
[Even arXiv is negligible on human intelligence.]
You would normally expect, that at least, once a disease [human intelligence surrogacy] is having an epicenter [conceptual brain science], those that care would deploy priority to it, to solve it and do everything it takes.
Well, now human intelligence is being replaced by artificial intelligence. There is no action, nothing from anyone, anywhere directly to try towards doing something useful. [Solving human intelligence directly is not the same as whatever is named human-machine intelligence or human-centered artificial intelligence. Instead, it is AI-centered human intelligence.]
What is coming as artificial intelligence ascends, is incomparable to anything ever seen and the economic cost might be unimaginable.
The Atlantic wrote, “Chronic illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, and lung disease now top our mortality tables—affecting some 130 million Americans and accounting for 90 percent of our $4.9 trillion annual health-care expenditure. We are the world’s least healthy high-income nation, bombarded with prescription-drug ads and buffeted by a wellness industry of alternative fixes. A September poll by Navigator, a Democratic public-opinion firm, found that seven in 10 Americans are convinced that the health system “is designed so drug and insurance companies make more money when Americans are sick.””
Except there would be some superintelligent AI that cures all diseases, solves all economic and environmental problems as well as provide thorough conflict resolution, the displacement of human intelligence from the lead may likely be the worse health situation, for humanity.
How so? There had always been a fundamental inadequacy with human intelligence, so it takes years to get an education, it takes years to get experience towards expertise and the number of specific things that can be known are limited — at least on average.
So, libraries and books were always useful for consultations. It was always more fun to play games or watch some entertainment than to learn, most times.
When the internet went commercial, search was one of the most successful use cases because it augmented human intelligence.
Now, AI is here and different. AI is not a book. It is not a library. AI is not some teacher, some expert or some professor. AI is also not like a search engine with human result, at least, directly. AI generates results. It works on answers like it owns them. It is comparatively adaptive to learning, to work and to companionships.
Human productivity and social connections are now underscored by digital. Digital is where AI is based and best. AI is getting adept at doing whatever can be done digitally. AI is chipping away parts of the tasks that make up for complex labor value.
AI is also able to guide, instruct and lead on several things in digital and in the physical world. AI is competing with entry-level jobs. AI is reducing some of the appetite for firms to hire and so forth. When people lose jobs, or appear to lack purpose, diseases may follow, addictions may follow, and so forth.
The Secretary cares about getting off addictions. Unemployment may spike it. Purposelessness may worsen it. People are also getting addicted to AI, resulting in delusions and psychosis, there is no AI Psychosis Research Lab on earth, to provide some mind display, as a parallel for safety. These are opportunities to lead for the Make America Healthy Again [MAHA] objective and the Department of Health and Human Services by December or to be explored say from January 1, 2026.
Also, what are vaccines [by scale] compared to the loss of human intelligence? What would it have meant to the United States, at least, that as everyone gave up on human intelligence, that the Secretary championed it?
There is a recent [November 12, 2025] spotlight in New York, What Is Gen Z Supposed to Do When AI Takes Entry-Level Jobs? stating that, “If the number of entry-level jobs dwindles across industries, naturally, the supply of experienced employees will wane. Without entry-level positions, how will the next generation of middle managers and executives get training? Millennials would be the last keepers of unwritten workplace knowledge, the intangible lessons and institutional know-how that haven’t been, or can’t be, fed into LLMs. What would the economy look like then.”
There is also problem gambling, which is a serious situation now. There is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision [DSM-5-TR], which is more like a dictionary without explaining the conditions for components in the brain, and their mechanisms, even directly. A reason that artificial intelligence is dangerous is because humans often gravitate to any source of intelligence so long it provides advantage. The appeal of AI, for intelligence, is a major emotional entrapment, as well as weakening force, as humans would be deferential to it — for directional intelligence.
No one knows how the brain works?
But what is known is that all functions involve neurons with their electrical and chemical signals. So, in theorizing how the brain works to, at least, explain human intelligence, mental disorders, neurotechnology, psychedelics and so forth, it is possible to explore electrical and chemical signals directly, as components of mind, stating their stations, relays, mechanisms regarding each condition.
There is no scientist anywhere on earth who would have an anti-evidence argument if the brain were explained directly by electrical and chemical signals, in sets, in clusters of neurons. So, this is a win, a free and giant one at the center of everything psychiatry, neurology and — now the third division of neuroscience — intelligence or human intelligence.
There are lots of unknowns in neuroscience. Taking a conceptual lead with evidence is an open field that would also be monumental for humanity.
If you want to theorize how consciousness works, electrical and chemical signals are strong candidates. If it is to explain all cases of addictions, side-effects of psychiatric medications, they apply as well, even if it is to [conceptually] explain causation in the brain for mental health. They work. This is also the future of neuroscience, going beyond the present stage of neurons for everything which has been the case for more than a century.
The future is the brain, who wins it, if it is MAHA, leads it.
This is an advertisement
